INS Vikrant truly a pan Indian effort

[IndoUS]

US will try their best to put F-35B on it as relation are getting better and Also they need some customer for it too other than Japanese and Taiwanese... If a deal would be made in the back doors for IAC-1 and then IAC-2 and IAC-3 will have F-35C on board and US will going to help India with the supplied equipment for IAC_2 and IAC-3.

F-35 C seems like a good choice, but I am on edge for getting it. There has been too much of a draw back from the partner countries. Unless US gives something important like EMALS, I don't India would buy it for its ACC. Considering if the Russian come up with a naval version of PAK FA.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Against whom? Maldives? Or Myannmar or Mauritius?

ACC are very expensive to operate and maintain, and need heavy protection.

We dont need it against Pak because land based Air force is sufficient. For China, we need to enter the pacific -- and thats a different level game altogether.


So what does the navy have in mind when its making 3 outdated ACC.

Oh well; then just think that the Carriers will be useful to invade Somalia........that should keep you happy then?

which part of india built the engine?
which part of india built its AESA radar?
which part of india built those fighter jets?
which part of india built its satellite navigation system?

LOLLLLL, piecefool surfaces, now faithfool guy will also pop-up over the horizon soon enough............

 

[chhota bheem]

F-35 C seems like a good choice, but I am on edge for getting it. There has been too much of a draw back from the partner countries. Unless US gives something important like EMALS, I don't India would buy it for its ACC. Considering if the Russian come up with a naval version of PAK FA.

I think US deputy secratry of defence has said they are willing to give EMALS for the futute ACC.

 

[rafiqali]

What will you do if China enters the Indian Ocean? Scram for an aircraft carrier then? This kind of logic does not work. It is better to have one even if you don't need it now rather than search for one when you drastically need it.

Aircraft carriers dont operate as a single entity but is supported by the whole carrier battle group with escorts.

What nonsense?? You want to have ACC dogfights? Indian ACC against Chinese ACC?

Why do we need ACC if Chinese ACC enters Indian Ocean? To counter ACC you need subs, Air force and conventional shift, not another ACC.

Learn up the basics before flaunting your ignorance on an international forum.

I suggest you read about carriers in general and their ability to project power. But WRT Indian navy:

Historically, the IN has used carriers for a different purpose than the likes of the USN. Not so much for projecting air power (though it has done that as well), but for fleet defence. That is, the carrier air wing (the fighters on the carrier) protect the rest of the fleet of destroyers and frigates. (In the USN, the smaller ships protect the carrier which takes airpower to any corner of the world.)

No naval fleet will dare to come anywhere close to an enemy fleet that is protected by several multirole fighters. When an Indian naval fleet sails during war, if it has an accompanying aircraft carrier, there will be a few 4th gen aircrafts flying combat air patrol. Which means that the Indian fleet can see (and strike) much farther than an opposing fleet without air cover.

To give an example, the range of most Pakistani ship to ship missiles is 120 kms. The range of Brahmos, our navy's most potent missile, is 290 kms. But what is the range of mig-29Ks? Thousands of kms. And they will carry anti ship ordnance on them, among other things. So a fleet with a carrier can strike thousands of kms away, while a fleet without air cover can only strike a few hundred kms at most.

And weapon range is only one part of the picture. Sensors, ability to detect hostile entities - all this is much, much enhanced when you have airborne sensors as opposed to only ship borne ones.

How a carrier helps the navy is a very long topic, and I can't even scratch the surface. You might want to ask some of the members who are informed on naval affairs. Long story short, a fleet of ships with aircrafts protecting them is much more survivable than a fleet without air cover. Pakistan uses shore based fighters to provide some air cover to its fleet near home shores, but shore based aircrafts have limited range and loiter time. Aircrafts on carriers move with the fleet. If we have a three carrier navy as envisaged, India can ensure that all its fleet in the IOR will have air cover, that too of some very potent multirole aircrafts.

What a stupid idea?

Its clear that you dont even know that the support group is for defence of the vulnerable ACC. ACC is not for defence of the supporting destroyers and frigates.

ACC is pure air power projection...but comes at great cost and vulnerability.

Its clear that you are in Babe's league...Sonny boy. No point in further discussions.

 

[janon]

What nonsense?? You want to have ACC dogfights? Indian ACC against Chinese ACC?

Why do we need ACC if Chinese ACC enters Indian Ocean? To counter ACC you need subs, Air force and conventional shift, not another ACC.

Learn up the basics before flaunting your ignorance on an international forum.

Read carefully before you flaunt your schizophrenia on an international forum (or anywhere else). He only said "if china enters the IO", not "if Chinese aircraft carriers enter".

That could mean Chinese submarines, or surface vessels entering the IOR. And who will counter those? Do you want sub to sub battles, or would you rather have our mig 29Ks and Tejases dropping mines or missiles on them?

Anyway, I patiently explained some reasons why an ACC is invaluable for our navy - fleet air defence. You have not responded to or addressed that.

 

[anant_s]

F-35 C seems like a good choice,.... Unless US gives something important like EMALS, I don't India would buy it for its ACC. Considering if the Russian come up with a naval version of PAK FA.

Yes & not to forget E-2Ds also which IN would want as a carrier based AWACS option. If the deal bundles jets, launching system etc our future ACs will be amongst some of the best in the world.

 

[IndoUS]

Yes & not to forget E-2Ds also which IN would want as a carrier based AWACS option. If the deal bundles jets, launching system etc our future ACs will be amongst some of the best in the world.

We gonna need a bigger ACC for that. I think maybe by the time we get IAC III or IV we would get it. But then again, by that time there might me a newer smaller version of the E-2D have come out. So for now I am happy with what we have. Plus the P8I are beast on their own even if they can't be used from an ACC, they can cover IOR pretty well considering we are getting 7-8 if I am not wrong.

 

[janon]

What a stupid idea?

Its clear that you dont even know that the support group is for defence of the vulnerable ACC. ACC is not for defence of the supporting destroyers and frigates.

ACC is pure air power projection...but comes at great cost and vulnerability.

Its clear that you are in Babe's league...Sonny boy. No point in further discussions.

LOL. You just demonstrated who is more informed, and who is not worth responding to.

It is a fact - IN uses ACCs for a very different role than the USN does. For IN, projecting airpower is not the main reason for having a carrier. India does not fight expeditionary wars halfway around the world like US does. Her ACCs are mainly for fleet defence.

Anyway, the tone of your response is not matched by the ignorance you display, so I will not waste further time with you. My mistake to type out a patient reply to your earlier (seemingly humble) request for info. Now that you have made it clear that you simply want to fume and vent, there is no further reason to indulge you.

Enjoy your ignorant rants yourself, because nobody else will.

Both "fuuls" are the same guy. They just need to ramp-up their "State Stipendiary Payouts" somehow or the other. This is just part of that exercise.

You mean they get 50 cents per id? My my!

 

[faithfulguy]

What nonsense?? You want to have ACC dogfights? Indian ACC against Chinese ACC?

Why do we need ACC if Chinese ACC enters Indian Ocean? To counter ACC you need subs, Air force and conventional shift, not another ACC.

Learn up the basics before flaunting your ignorance on an international forum.



What a stupid idea?

Its clear that you dont even know that the support group is for defence of the vulnerable ACC. ACC is not for defence of the supporting destroyers and frigates.

ACC is pure air power projection...but comes at great cost and vulnerability.

Its clear that you are in Babe's league...Sonny boy. No point in further discussions.

Thanks for being a beacon of common sense among the fools. If they are the actual commander, India would be using its air craft on the carriers as how they envisaged, for providing air cover to its fleet.

 

[rafiqali]

A bit of reality check for ACC fanatics. ACC s are really white elephants, on the way to evolutionary extinction.

And India is spending its valueble money on 3 of these! When we dont have decent tanks or Aircraft?

I’ve been saying for a long time that aircraft carriers are just history’s most expensive floating targets, and that they were doomed.

But now I can tell you exactly how they’re going to die. I’ve just read one of the most shocking stories in years. It comes from the US Naval Institute, not exactly an alarmist or anti-Navy source. And what it says is that the US carrier group is scrap metal.

The Chinese military has developed a ballistic missile, Dong Feng 21, specifically designed to kill US aircraft carriers: “Because the missile employs a complex guidance system, low radar signature and a maneuverability that makes its flight path unpredictable, the odds that it can evade tracking systems to reach its target are increased. It is estimated that the missile can travel at mach 10 and reach its maximum range of 2000km in less than 12 minutes.” That’s the US Naval Institute talking, remember. They’re understating the case when they say that, with speed, satellite guidance and maneuverability like that, “the odds that it can evade tracking systems to reach its target are increased.”

You know why that’s an understatement? Because of a short little sentence I found farther on in the article—and before you read that sentence, I want all you trusting Pentagon groupies to promise me that you’ll think hard about what it implies. Here’s the sentence: “Ships currently have no defense against a ballistic missile attack.”

That’s right: no defense at all. The truth is that they have very feeble defenses against any attack with anything more modern than cannon. I’ve argued before no carrier group would survive a saturation attack by huge numbers of low-value attackers, whether they’re Persians in Cessnas and cigar boats or mass-produced Chinese cruise missiles. But at least you could look at the missile tubes and Phalanx gatlings and pretend that you were safe. But there is no defense, none at all, against something as obvious as a ballistic missile.

So it doesn’t matter one god damn whether the people in the operations room of a targeted carrier could track the Dong Feng 21 as it lobbed itself at them. They might do a real hall-of-fame job of tracking it as it goes up and comes down. But so what? Let me repeat the key sentence here: “Ships currently have no defense against a ballistic missile attack.

Think back a ways. How old is the ballistic missile? Kind of a trick question; a siege mortar is a ballistic missile, just unguided. A trebuchet on an upslope outside a castle is a ballistic weapon. But serious long-range rocket-powered ballistic weapons go back at least to the V-2. A nuclear-armed V2 would have been a pretty solid way of wiping out a carrier group, and both components, the nuke and the ballistic missile, were available as long ago as 1945.

A lot has happened since then, like MIRVs, mobile launchers, massively redundant satellite guidance—but the thing to remember is that every single change has favored the attacker. Every single goddamn change.

You know that Garmin satnav you use to find the nearest Thai place when the in-laws are visiting? If you were the Navy brass, that should have scared you to death. The Mac on your kid’s bedroom desk should have scared you. Every time electronics got smaller, cheaper and more efficient, the carrier became more of a death trap. Every time stealth tech jumped another step, the carrier was more obviously a bad idea. Smaller, cooler-running engines: another bad sign for the carrier. Every single change in technology in the past half a century has had “Stop building carriers!” written all over it. And nobody in the navy brass paid any attention.

The lesson here is the same one all of you suckers should have learned from watching the financial news this year: the people at the top are just as dumb as you are, just meaner and greedier. And that goes for the ones running the US surface fleet as much as it does for the GM or Chrysler honchos. Hell, they even look the same. Take that Wagoner *** who just got the boot from GM and put him in a tailored uniform and he could walk on as an admiral in any officer’s club from Guam to Diego Garcia. You have to stop thinking somebody up there is looking out for you.

Remember that one sentence, get it branded onto your arm: “Ships currently have no defense against a ballistic missile attack.” What does that tell you about the distinguished gentlemen with all the ribbons on their chest who’ve been standing up on carrier bridges looking like they know what they’re doing for the past 50 years? They’re either stupid or so sleazy they’re willing to make a career commanding ships they know, goddamn well know, are floating coffins for thousands of ranks and dozens of the most expensive goldplated airplanes in the history of the world. You call that patriotic? I’d hang them all.

That’s why it’s so sickening to read **** like the following:

“The purpose of the Navy,” Vice Admiral John Bird, commander of the Seventh Fleet, tells me, “is not to fight.” The mere presence of the Navy should suffice, he argues, to dissuade any attack or attempt to destabilize the region. From Yokosuka, Guam, and Honolulu, the Navy is sending its ships on missions to locales as far away as Madagascar. On board the Blue Ridge, the vice admiral’s command ship anchored at Yokosuka, huge display screens allow officers to track the movements of any country’s military vessels cruising from the international date line in the east to the African coast in the west—the range of the Seventh Fleet’s zone of influence.

That’s the kind of story people are still writing. It’s so stupid, that first line, I won’t even bother with it: “The purpose of the Navy is not to fight.” No kidding. The Seventh Fleet covers the area included in that 2000 km range for the new Chinese anti-ship weapons, so I guess it’s a good thing they’re not there to fight.

Stories like this were all over the place in the last days of the British Empire. For some dumbass reason, these reporters love the Navy. They were waving flags and feeling good about things when the Repulse and the Prince of Wales steamed out with no air cover to oppose Japanese landings. Afterward, when both ships were lying on the sea floor, nobody wanted to talk about it much. What I mean to say here is, don’t be fooled by the happy talk. That’s the lesson from GM, Chrysler and the Navy: these people don’t know ****. And they don’t ******* care either. They’re going to ride the system and hope it lasts long enough to see them retire to a house by a golf course, get their daughters married and buy a nice plot in an upscale cemetery. They could give a damn what happens to the rest of us.

The War Nerd: This Is How the Carriers Will Die (Updated Version) - By Gary Brecher - The eXiled

 

[posedion]

What nonsense?? You want to have ACC dogfights? Indian ACC against Chinese ACC?

Why do we need ACC if Chinese ACC enters Indian Ocean? To counter ACC you need subs, Air force and conventional shift, not another ACC.

Learn up the basics before flaunting your ignorance on an international forum.



What a stupid idea?

Its clear that you dont even know that the support group is for defence of the vulnerable ACC. ACC is not for defence of the supporting destroyers and frigates.

ACC is pure air power projection...but comes at great cost and vulnerability.

Its clear that you are in Babe's league...Sonny boy. No point in further discussions.

Mr self proclaimed genius with a economy more than 4 trillion dollar by 2020 India needs 4 carrier battle groups with the 4th one being nuclear to protect its sea lanes and economic tranquility. our interests tomorrow will stretch to the cape of good hope to the eastern pacific further more the partnership with US is for this reason.

 

[faithfulguy]

A bit of reality check for ACC fanatics. ACC s are really white elephants, on the way to evolutionary extinction.



The War Nerd: This Is How the Carriers Will Die (Updated Version) - By Gary Brecher - The eXiled

I agree with you to a certain point. AC is a power projection weapon, not a strategic weapon. The subs will be the last remaining ships "sailing" when all the surface fleets are wiped out. This is because the noisiest sub is more quiet than the most quiet surface ship. If you can hear them first before they can hear you, the battle is over.

However, battle carrier group is still useful when fighting a none strategic war. Basically, a none nuclear war. So there is still value in AC groups as not all wars are world ending wars.

 

[janon]

A bit of reality check for ACC fanatics. ACC s are really white elephants, on the way to evolutionary extinction.

And India is spending its valueble money on 3 of these! When we dont have decent tanks or Aircraft?

A bit of info about the author of that crap:

While Brecher lacks military experience or formal training in war, he has credited himself as self-educated out of a personal, lifelong obsession with warfare. He has also described himself as a fat slob who spends approximately eight hours a day on the internet searching for war news. Brecher describes himself as a "war nerd".

Gary Brecher - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How about reading real admirals and real manuals of warfare for a change, instead of taking the word of CoD addicts?

 

[satishkumarcsc]

What nonsense?? You want to have ACC dogfights? Indian ACC against Chinese ACC?

Why do we need ACC if Chinese ACC enters Indian Ocean? To counter ACC you need subs, Air force and conventional shift, not another ACC.

Learn up the basics before flaunting your ignorance on an international forum.



What a stupid idea?

Its clear that you dont even know that the support group is for defence of the vulnerable ACC. ACC is not for defence of the supporting destroyers and frigates.

ACC is pure air power projection...but comes at great cost and vulnerability.

Its clear that you are in Babe's league...Sonny boy. No point in further discussions.

You think that subs alone can take on an ACC? you must be joking. Jubs form a compliment of the carrier battle group. The ASW aircrafts carried by the ACC are a nightmare for subs as they dont know from where the depth charges will be launched. You need to learn the basics about naval warfare and how the CBG can devastate the morale of the opposing forces.

The arguement between subs and aircraft carriers are going on for a long time and now it has finally dawned upon the planners that they must be used in tandem to achieve the best possible results. Great cost and vulnerablity is a given factor in warships but also the versatility that it brings along with it.

And stop calling everyone as you like. Compared to us you are a kid in this forum.

Whatever that floats can be sunk and whatever that flies can be brought down and this is the logic. None of the SSKs have the capability to launch aircrafts and none of the ACC can submerge and this is a known philosophy.

 

[posedion]

I agree with you to a certain point. AC is a power projection weapon, not a strategic weapon. The subs will be the last remaining ships "sailing" when all the surface fleets are wiped out. This is because the noisiest sub is more quiet than the most quiet surface ship. If you can hear them first before they can hear you, the battle is over.

However, battle carrier group is still useful when fighting a none strategic war. Basically, a none nuclear war. So there is still value in AC groups as not all wars are world ending wars.

countries having acc's are also nuclear weapons power so who the f--k will mess so u can expect acc's to stay for a long time and countries are not fools to invest on them if they have lived their use.