In a full-blown war with India sinking the INS Vikrant should be top priority

[Philip the Arab]

This thread will be exactly what the title is about. I stress this simply because aircraft carriers allow strikes from the sea thus eliminating the need for airbases. How this can be accomplished is complex since most likely the ship will be with a carrier strike group but there are three options I see #1 being anti-ship cruise missiles launched in barrages from shore based batteries #2 being air-launched Exocets and #3 being ship-launched or even submarines destroying the ship. The ship will be well defended so the best option would be a preemptive sinking when war is imminent. If someone with more experience about Pakistan's and India's navy that could elaborate on options.

JF-17 with Exocet.

 

[untitled]

Can the JF-17 carry the Exocet?

 

[Counter-Errorist]

Hypothetically speaking, in the case where the Indian Navy launches a missile attack on Karachi, can we nuke the carrier group?

- Abhinav's bloodied face plastered all over twitter jolted the Indian public into a reality check. Their imaginations of war being like what they see in Bollywood movies was shattered and they suddenly didn't want a war anymore. A nuke will do that a hundred-folds.

- Most Indian keyboard warriors, armchair generals and media anchors are sitting comfortably away from the fighting. The ones suffering as always, are the Kashmiris. They need to understand that the war can come knocking home at any time.

- At some point, we need to make the Indians understand that our nuclear threshold has been reached. Otherwise we should just place our nukes in the museum for display.

- Without a strike group, their navy will be crippled and they no longer have disproportionate superiority over our forces.

 

[KhalaiMakhlooq]

you just need to target satcoms, navigation and magentic systems.

the rest will be down to manual warfare where pak will overpower the agressor.

the number one priority of pak should be destroying helicopters.

 

[lcloo]

Why buy Exocet when you already have CM-400AKG which has been tested on JF-17. Comparing Exocet with CM-400AKG:-

Range: Exocet 70 - 180KM; CM-400AKG 100 - 240KM
Speed: Exocet Mach 0.92 ; CM-400AKG Mach 5
War head : Exocet 165Kg; CM-400AKG 150Kg

Advantage of CM-400AKG is obvious, in speed and range. At Mach 5 supersonic speed, it is far more difficult to intercept than the Mach 0.92 Exocet. And it has superior range compare with Exocet.

 

[KhalaiMakhlooq]

Why buy Exocet when you already have CM-400 which has been tested on JF-17. Comparing Exocet with CM-400:-

Range: Exocet 70 - 180KM; CM-400 100 - 240KM
Speed: Exocet Mach 0.92 ; CM-400 Mach 5
War head : Exocet 165Kg; CM-400 150Kg

Advantage of CM-400 is obvious, in speed and range. At Mach 5 supersonic speed, it is far more difficult to intercept than the Mach 0.92 Exocet. And it has superior range compare with Exocet.

can these jets survive mountain warfare?

 

[Philip the Arab]

Hypothetically speaking, in the case where the Indian Navy launches a missile attack on Karachi, can we nuke the carrier group?

- Abhinav's bloodied face plastered all over twitter jolted the Indian public into a reality check. Their imaginations of war being like what they see in Bollywood movies was shattered and they suddenly didn't want a war anymore. A nuke will do that a hundred-folds.

- Most Indian keyboard warriors, armchair generals and media anchors are sitting comfortably away from the fighting. The ones suffering as always, are the Kashmiris. They need to understand that the war can come knocking home at any time.

- At some point, we need to make the Indians understand that our nuclear threshold has been reached. Otherwise we should just place our nukes in the museum for display.

- Without a strike group, their navy will be crippled and they no longer have disproportionate superiority over our forces.

I guess but that would be counter-intuitive because that would start a nuclear war unless you meant of course that the missile attack was nuclear. IF and only IF nukes were used against the aircraft carrier they would have to be after a nuclear war. Besides I don't think nukes are needed to be used against the ship. Hell, the ship could be destroyed preemptively while sitting in dock.

 

[lcloo]

can these survive mountain warfare?

CM-400 is a supersonic missile, not a jet. The jet in question should be JF-17. And how is a JF-17 related to survive in mountain warfare?

 

[Philip the Arab]

Why buy Exocet when you already have CM-400AKG which has been tested on JF-17. Comparing Exocet with CM-400AKG:-

Range: Exocet 70 - 180KM; CM-400AKG 100 - 240KM
Speed: Exocet Mach 0.92 ; CM-400AKG Mach 5
War head : Exocet 165Kg; CM-400AKG 150Kg

Advantage of CM-400AKG is obvious, in speed and range. At Mach 5 supersonic speed, it is far more difficult to intercept than the Mach 0.92 Exocet. And it has superior range compare with Exocet.

True, but I was saying some options and did not consider that. A whole salvo would have to be launched because there has to be some air defenses on the ship or with the carrier group.

 

[KhalaiMakhlooq]

CM-400 is a supersonic missile, not a jet. The jet in question should be JF-17. And how is a JF-17 related to survive in mountain warfare?

the bigger threat to pk is indian helicopters.

 

[Counter-Errorist]

I guess but that would be counter-intuitive because that would start a nuclear war unless you meant of course that the missile attack was nuclear. IF and only IF nukes were used against the aircraft carrier they would have to be after a nuclear war. Besides I don't think nukes are needed to be used against the ship. Hell, the ship could be destroyed preemptively while sitting in dock.

I meant in response to a large-scale conventional missile attack. A launch at sea away from populated cities would have a far lesser chance of India escalating. Indian public will know that the next attack will be on them and in order for Modi to win an election, he needs voters that haven't been roasted by the nuclear holocaust.

 

[fitpOsitive]

This thread will be exactly what the title is about. I stress this simply because aircraft carriers allow strikes from the sea thus eliminating the need for airbases. How this can be accomplished is complex since most likely the ship will be with a carrier strike group but there are three options I see #1 being anti-ship cruise missiles launched in barrages from shore based batteries #2 being air-launched Exocets and #3 being ship-launched or even submarines destroying the ship. The ship will be well defended so the best option would be a preemptive sinking when war is imminent. If someone with more experience about Pakistan's and India's navy that could elaborate on options.
View attachment 543585
JF-17 with Exocet.

It will be like "antim sanskar" of an already dead thing.

 

[lcloo]

It is not easy to sink an aircraft carrier as demonstrated by US Navy trying to sink their old decommissioned aircraft carrier some times back. The most powerful weapon would be torpedo due to its large warhead. Several torpedo would be needed to sink an aircraft carrier.

Anti-ship missile can be used to mission-kill a CV, i.e. make some damage to stop it functioning as its mission required and force it to retreat or face the danger of being a torpedo target.

 

[Philip the Arab]

the bigger threat to pk is indian helicopters.

How so?

 

[KhalaiMakhlooq]

How so?

in event of war from pak... india would do something biblical. just instincts