INS Vikrant truly a pan Indian effort

[faithfulguy]

Dear either way the statement is true the big whale protects the smaller fishes and the smaller ones protect the mother each with a different role, with fast changing geo political environment for larger economies with huge maritime interests acc's are becoming like must haves.

Lets put it this way. The purpose of AC is not to protect the destroyers, cruisers or frigates. You are thinking of WWII destroyers and surface warships. But modern fleet protection destroyers are more than enough to hold its own against attacking aircraft. As matter in fact, an AC need protection of Aegis destroyer, not the other way around.

Hold on, India do not have aegis destroyer or any fleet air defense destroyer. So maybe you are correct. Sorry, my bad.

Land based aircrafts will be diverted towards the enemy's air force. Pakistan has a strong air defense against its eastern side, and by diverting land based ac for naval role, it will greatly affect the army's offensive. India will do what it did during the war with Pakistan during the liberation of Bangladesh, and that is blocking the trade to the country and using the naval air wing to bomb the harbors.

For Pakistan, use AC is still overkilled. I'm sure India has naval air branch from the shores and that should be sufficient. US has marine corp air wing for this purpose.

 

[rafiqali]

Land based aircrafts will be diverted towards the enemy's air force. Pakistan has a strong air defense against its eastern side, and by diverting land based ac for naval role, it will greatly affect the army's offensive. India will do what it did during the war with Pakistan during the liberation of Bangladesh, and that is blocking the trade to the country and using the naval air wing to bomb the harbors.

Subs can be taken out just like an acc, and they can be tracked by ASW helicopter. Every ships have their specific roles. It is more viable to use an aircraft rather than sending a sub and loosing it in the process.

You can bomb Karachi or Gwadar from Junagadh or Jodhpur. Dont need to put an ACC in Arabian sea for that.

And ports are best blocked by Subs.

 

[faithfulguy]

Land based aircrafts will be diverted towards the enemy's air force. Pakistan has a strong air defense against its eastern side, and by diverting land based ac for naval role, it will greatly affect the army's offensive. India will do what it did during the war with Pakistan during the liberation of Bangladesh, and that is blocking the trade to the country and using the naval air wing to bomb the harbors.

Subs can be taken out just like an acc, and they can be tracked by ASW helicopter. Every ships have their specific roles.

Trust me, subs cannot be taken out like an acc. the technology to hunt the subs are way behind the ability of subs to hunt down the surface ships. This including using ASW helicopter to go after the helicopters. During cold war, US has no strategic role for air craft carriers as the expectation is that they would be in the bottom of the ocean at the beginning of WWIII.

 

[IndoUS]

Lets put it this way. The purpose of AC is not to protect the destroyers, cruisers or frigates. You are thinking of WWII destroyers and surface warships. But modern fleet protection destroyers are more than enough to hold its own against attacking aircraft. As matter in fact, an AC need protection of Aegis destroyer, not the other way around.

Hold on, India do not have aegis destroyer or any fleet air defense destroyer. So maybe you are correct. Sorry, my bad.



For Pakistan, use AC is still overkilled. I'm sure India has naval air branch from the shores and that should be sufficient. US has marine corp air wing for this purpose.

Naval air branch is still in its infancy, most of the navy fighter are deployed to the south. Until there is a strong naval wing that covers the entire coast I doubt there will be much change.

 

[faithfulguy]

Naval air branch is still in its infancy, most of the navy fighter are deployed to the south. Until there is a strong naval wing that covers the entire coast I doubt there will be much change.

And this is what India should focus on first before it build or even induct one AC. This make me wonder if the Indian defense establishment is building a force for media purpose or for fighting an actual war.

 

[IndoUS]

Trust me, subs cannot be taken out like an acc. the technology to hunt the subs are way behind the ability of subs to hunt down the surface ships. This including using ASW helicopter to go after the helicopters. During cold war, US has no strategic role for air craft carriers as the expectation is that they would be in the bottom of the ocean at the beginning of WWIII.

That is the main reason India went for the P-8I and is beefing up its ASW capabilities. Subs have become quieter but that doesn't changes the fact that they can be traced. US is still building ACC so I highly doubt that reasoning, majority of earths surface is covered with water so I doubt we would be saying good bye to the ACC.

And this is what India should focus on first before it build or even induct one AC. This make me wonder if the Indian defense establishment is building a force for media purpose or for fighting an actual war.

India has always operated ACC, the purpose of the ACC is to provide air defense for the naval asset no matter the threat. If we scrap the idea then all the years of experience of operating an ACC will go to waste. It is the same reasoning China is building ACC, even when it has developed missiles in attempts to thwart off USN. ACC are part of navies that want to expand their reach and India can't provide air cover over the entire IOR unless it has ACC.

 

[faithfulguy]

That is the main reason India went for the P-8I and is beefing up its ASW capabilities. Subs have become quieter but that doesn't changes the fact that they can be traced. US is still building ACC so I highly doubt that reasoning, majority of earths surface is covered with water so I doubt we would be saying good bye to the ACC.

There is a reason that AC is not a strategic asset. But nuclear subs, especially SSBNs, are the most important strategic asset. This is because AC is not meant for a nuclear war. US build the ACC for projecting power against countries like Iran, Iraq, Libya etc. Not for fighting WWIII.

 

[sankranti]

You can bomb Karachi or Gwadar from Junagadh or Jodhpur. Dont need to put an ACC in Arabian sea for that.

And ports are best blocked by Subs.

ACC provides flexibility in operations that no other Naval asset can offer. They can attack under the sea, on the water and in the air. They can play either an attacking role or a defensive role.

They can play an excellent humanitarian role during natural disasters. There is no other Naval asset that can match up to an ACC. Which is why even after almost 70 years, ACC continues to be one of the most desired naval asset in History.

 

[posedion]

Why only Cape of Good Hope? I m sure we also have economic interests in Brazil and the North Sea. So lets get 27 ACCs.

After all, India, in due course, has to replace the US as protector of free commerce and sea lanes.

I m sure that countries with far bigger trade than India, but with no ACCs, are having their ships held up by hostile navies everyday.

If you can understand what area of interest is, changing geo political situations and need to proclaim what your interest are we need 4 carrier battle groups and we sure are working for it, 27 dear grow up hope its not your age your are taking.

 

[posedion]

Trust me, subs cannot be taken out like an acc. the technology to hunt the subs are way behind the ability of subs to hunt down the surface ships. This including using ASW helicopter to go after the helicopters. During cold war, US has no strategic role for air craft carriers as the expectation is that they would be in the bottom of the ocean at the beginning of WWIII.

At the very begining of WW3 everything will be down so no use discussing doomsday scenario, like Albert Einstein said "I really dont know with what weapons ww3 will be fought I very well know WW4 will be fought with one sticks and stones.

 

[rafiqali]

There is a reason that AC is not a strategic asset. But nuclear subs, especially SSBNs, are the most important strategic asset. This is because AC is not meant for a nuclear war. US build the ACC for projecting power against countries like Iran, Iraq, Libya etc. Not for fighting WWIII.

It is well known that ACs are useless against "real" countries because they are either nuclear powers, or have strong navies and air defenses.

ACs are good only against small nations which do not have effective navies or air defence. So, you take your AC near their coasts, bomb the hell out of them... Rinse...repeat. That's precisely how the US uses them and that's why it sent a Carrier fleet to Bay of Bengal in 1971, threatening to bomb Calcutta.

Using AC as air cover for fleet defense is a stupid idea. It almost conjures up images of WW-II with dogfights and blazing flak guns.

 

[faithfulguy]

It is well known that ACs are useless against "real" countries because they are either nuclear powers, or have strong navies and air defenses.

ACs are good only against small nations which do not have effective navies or air defence. So, you take your AC near their coasts, bomb the hell out of them... Rinse...repeat. That's precisely how the US uses them and that's why it sent a Carrier fleet to Bay of Bengal in 1971, threatening to bomb Calcutta.

Using AC as air cover for fleet defense is a stupid idea. It almost conjures up images of WW-II with dogfights and blazing flak guns.

But I was corrected by this one guy who reminded me that India has no fleet defense destroyers. So it requires AC for fleet defense.

 

[deckingraj]

I agree with you. I'm still waiting from the others on how India would use its carriers. And if its for fleet defense, how would the AC use for fleet defense?I can't wait for the answers.

Actually you shouldn't...bcoz no matter how many replies will be given you will not learn as you are not here to learn but to troll(sorry so say that!!)

Why only Cape of Good Hope? I m sure we also have economic interests in Brazil and the North Sea. So lets get 27 ACCs.

After all, India, in due course, has to replace the US as protector of free commerce and sea lanes.

I m sure that countries with far bigger trade than India, but with no ACCs, are having their ships held up by hostile navies everyday.

Couple of things you should keep in mind if you are here to actually discuss things...i mean that is what a defence forum is all about...however to achieve the goal one has to give respect and show patience....Look no matter how much you or I rant here IN thinks that they need 3 AC's and they are going to have them...so let's try to find logic in that or debunk it..but again by debating like men and not kids high on adreline..


Now we all know that IN have a long ambition of becoming a true blue water navy...and we all know what is really needed for being one...Of-course AC are here for power projection but that is what nuclear weapons/BM/ASAT weapons are for...no?? Does countries who possess these weapons use them on everyday basis?? and just like AC lot of money is spent on possessing/maintaing these weapons as well...so to be quiet honest money is not a concern...You also mentioned about the fact that we lack better tanks etc etc and money should be spent on those....well, how naive of you...Are you suggesting here that money that was meant for upgrading tanks and other weapons in your list have been taken and moved towards AC's?? you can't be more wrong than that....


Anyhow let's try to anwer your basic question...why does IN wants AC

- Power projection(not just limited to Pakistan/China)
- Achieve Blue water Navy role
- With growing commercial interests in the China sea, as well for everlasting presence in Arabian sea(future need)
- As said earlier prime role of our AC is to protect our naval ships from Enemy Air attack and also launch limited attacks against enemy feets and coastal targets(have been exibited in 71 war)..
- Think about a task where your goal is to invade and occupy an Islant in Indian Ocean
- throw in couple of amphibious landing ships(another aspect which is work in progress)
- Your AC will act as a force multiplier of humungous magnitude..
- They also act as a Second Strike capability and add another string to so called nucear triad...very important in our perspective as we are surrounded by 2 potential nuclear adversaries who are "all weather friends"...In other words our threat perception is of huge proportion and we may face a so called two frontal war scenario....it is no rocket science that you need to be prepared for the worst...
- Last but not the least...AC is a mean to provide/sell security to smaller neighboring countries and to protect vital shipping lanes...

I can keep on adding here..anyhow my basic theme is that India is growing economical muscle and we would need an equal growing military muscle.....AC is a very important arsenal to achieve that....

 

[rafiqali]

If you can understand what area of interest is, changing geo political situations and need to proclaim what your interest are we need 4 carrier battle groups and we sure are working for it, 27 dear grow up hope its not your age your are taking.

Fine, then its a different paradigm. Then its clear that ACC is not for defense but for power projection.

And the area of projection is the entire IOR, which means that India will not allow any hostile navy, especially the Chinese Navy, to operate or dominate the IOR.

The question is whether the ACC is the best way to do it, or are we operating on inertia just because of our "pride" in being the only Asian power with AC. Is there a less ponderous, cheaper and leaner and meaner way to do it? May be use a combination of subs, missiles and other ships?

I dont know. Maybe the experts can enlighten, including the "enemy" experts.
@faithfulguy

 

[sankranti]

Fine, then its a different paradigm. Then its clear that ACC is not for defense but for power projection.

And the area of projection is the entire IOR, which means that India will not allow any hostile navy, especially the Chinese Navy, to operate or dominate the IOR.

The question is whether the ACC is the best way to do it, or are we operating on inertia just because of our "pride" in being the only Asian power with AC. Is there a less ponderous, cheaper and leaner and meaner way to do it? May be use a combination of subs, missiles and other ships?

I dont know. Maybe the experts can enlighten, including the "enemy" experts.
@faithfulguy

Let me put it across in simple terms.

Consider the sea as a chess board. You have pawns, knights, castle, bishop etc.... Castle can move straight, bishop can move diagonally, pawn can move only one step forward and can attact only one step diagonally.

The Queen is the most powerful piece in the board because it can move both Diagonally and straight. It can control more squares in the chess board when placed strategically. It's move are usually decisive and strategic.

ACC at sea is like the Queen on the chess board.

Now there are various kinds of plays ...... one in which Queen is used to distract while the attack is really from a different front, One in which Queen forms the main attack, one in which Queen is sacrificed for a strategic gain ....but all chess players acknowledge the importance of the queen in the game and they continue to treat the enemy queen as a game changer.

The Bishop, knight, pawn etc ... are like the destroyers, frigates, submarines, missile boats etc..

Of course all this is useful only if you know how to play chess. I am pretty sure you do.