India Has Plans To Become A Nuclear Submarine Superpower

[Raj-Hindustani]

Maybe Indian navy should learn the basics first.

Someone Left a Hatch Open and Crippled India’s $2.9 Billion Submarine

Water damage put the submarine out of action for ten months.

www.popularmechanics.com

When I started working in IT company then I made few mistakes even while doing basic works.

Some people questioned on my ability and even forced to move from a project because my Team lead was not happy..

But now, after few years.... I got a role of specialist cyber defense.....

So basically means that if you work then possibly you will do mistakes and learn.... PN has maximum 2-3 submarines at any time...



There are many mistakes and incidents happened and happening around the world those are operating such critical technology like SSBN and a large number of submarine fleets... Those navys learn from their past mistakes and move forward..

Do not expect any incidents if they don't have such technology and a large fleet.. Thanks.

 

[aviator_fan]

This exists.


A quick and dirty formula is to divide the carrier tonnage by 10,000 and multiply by 4.

There is no equivalent to a US battle group that exists in Indian Navy. You have 2 squadrons of Mig 29s of which only one can deploy on a carrier at any given time. I think you have been reading a lot of US Navy material and then overlaying it with what Indian Navy is capable of. And of those 2 squadrons 3 were lost in a single year. Lets see where India can do this power projection as a battle group against a near adversary country.

I would disagree about the effectiveness of carriers. If used properly, carriers can be more effective than any surface ship type. One carrier parked in the arabian sea can alone blockade any supplies to pakistan by sea. One carrier parked in the Andamans can shut down the straits of malacca. (BTW, carriers carry a lot more than 18 fighters. Even small ones have 40-50 capacity. Big ones can go >100).

Nuke SSBNs are only for second strike capabilities, SSNs are there for actual combat.

You may know more than the US Navy , who actually uses its aircraft carriers with land-based assets when conducting offensive operations. Yes big ones can go up to 100 (and hence the term 'super carrier'). But the French/Indian Navy's hav a capacity of 30-40 aircraft. For Indian Navy specifically there are only two squadrons of Mig29Ks of which some of the aircraft are used for training. So two carriers against a near adversary are not very useful. This is not a limitation of carriers in the Indian Navy. But any Navy trying to establish or has carriers like the French, Chinese, and recently Royal Navy.

 

[Joe Shearer]

There is no equivalent to a US battle group that exists in Indian Navy. You have 2 squadrons of Mig 29s of which only one can deploy on a carrier at any given time. I think you have been reading a lot of US Navy material and then overlaying it with what Indian Navy is capable of. And of those 2 squadrons 3 were lost in a single year. Lets see where India can do this power projection as a battle group against a near adversary country.

Is your response related to battle groups, or to carrier-borne aircraft?

 

[ayesha.a]

There is no equivalent to a US battle group that exists in Indian Navy.

Of course not, and there is no equivalent in any other navy.

 

[ayesha.a]

There is no equivalent to a US battle group that exists in Indian Navy. You have 2 squadrons of Mig 29s of which only one can deploy on a carrier at any given time. I think you have been reading a lot of US Navy material and then overlaying it with what Indian Navy is capable of. And of those 2 squadrons 3 were lost in a single year. Lets see where India can do this power projection as a battle group against a near adversary country.


You may know more than the US Navy , who actually uses its aircraft carriers with land-based assets when conducting offensive operations. Yes big ones can go up to 100 (and hence the term 'super carrier'). But the French/Indian Navy's hav a capacity of 30-40 aircraft. For Indian Navy specifically there are only two squadrons of Mig29Ks of which some of the aircraft are used for training. So two carriers against a near adversary are not very useful. This is not a limitation of carriers in the Indian Navy. But any Navy trying to establish or has carriers like the French, Chinese, and recently Royal Navy.

The IN's doctrine for the employment of carriers is very different from that of the USN's. Power projection in distant lands is not the goal of our aircraft carriers - fleet protection is. Put simplistically, the IN's carrier borne fighters create an invulnerable bubble of approximately 500 Kms for the rest of the ships to operate - no hostile naval vessels would come near enough to be a threat.

In the USN, the escorting ships protect the carrier, who's function is to project airpower. In the IN, the carrier and its airwing protect the other ships, and render them invulnerable.

The IN's carrier wing did play a stellar role in '71 against the enemy's land, but that is not their primary purpose.

 

[chinasun]

India is welcome to develop nuclear submarines. Of course, I believe Pakistan will not be slower than India in developing nuclear submarines. Perhaps by the time India was successfully developed, Pakistan was already on trial voyage.Australia can have nuclear submarines, why India and Pakistan can't.

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

Even if so, shouldn’t India be a sanitation superpower first.

India tried, but noted the spot was already taken by China with more rural Chinese having access to safe sanitation services than India

 

[TOPGUN]

I would disagree about the effectiveness of carriers. If used properly, carriers can be more effective than any surface ship type. One carrier parked in the arabian sea can alone blockade any supplies to pakistan by sea. One carrier parked in the Andamans can shut down the straits of malacca. (BTW, carriers carry a lot more than 18 fighters. Even small ones have 40-50 capacity. Big ones can go >100).

Nuke SSBNs are only for second strike capabilities, SSNs are there for actual combat.

Those days are gone of blocking Pakistan sealines.

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

There is no equivalent to a US battle group that exists in Indian Navy. You have 2 squadrons of Mig 29s of which only one can deploy on a carrier at any given time. I think you have been reading a lot of US Navy material and then overlaying it with what Indian Navy is capable of. And of those 2 squadrons 3 were lost in a single year. Lets see where India can do this power projection as a battle group against a near adversary country.


You may know more than the US Navy , who actually uses its aircraft carriers with land-based assets when conducting offensive operations. Yes big ones can go up to 100 (and hence the term 'super carrier'). But the French/Indian Navy's hav a capacity of 30-40 aircraft. For Indian Navy specifically there are only two squadrons of Mig29Ks of which some of the aircraft are used for training. So two carriers against a near adversary are not very useful. This is not a limitation of carriers in the Indian Navy. But any Navy trying to establish or has carriers like the French, Chinese, and recently Royal Navy.

Indian naval carrier are based on defensive doctrines similar to former Soviet navy

Indian carriers are for 2 objectives
1. Protection of Indian coastline and islands from foreign naval attacks
2. Taking the fight to islands in Indian ocean and thereby denying a hostile foreign navy logistics close to India's security perimeter

 

[White and Green with M/S]

Indian naval carrier are based on defensive doctrines similar to former Soviet navy

Indian carriers are for 2 objectives
1. Protection of Indian coastline and islands from foreign naval attacks
2. Taking the fight to islands in Indian ocean and thereby denying a hostile foreign navy logistics close to India's security perimeter

Carriers are power projection weapons how could you consider them defensive weapons???