Second indigenous carrier a long way off: Navy Chief

[Dash]

Carriers are a waste of money focus on increase in Subs

utter STUPIDITY not to invest in ACs. by the way what firepower a sub has???, can you elaborate?

 

[axisofevil]

utter STUPIDITY not to invest in ACs. by the way what firepower a sub has???, can you elaborate?

Stupidity? Are you serious? Why would say a statement is stupid without even knowing the capabilities of a Sub??? Look at the weapons inventory your adversaries have. AC's are sitting ducks and in their future is questionable. Subs are the greatest weapons that the USN has not AC's. Ac's serve a purpose though but are not the best weapons. Remember in 1971, India was lucky its AC did not get destroyed.....remember luck! One direct hit by a ballistic missile or a determined enemy willing to go thru great lengths to take out an AC will mean risking the lives of 3,000-5,000 men and women depending on the size of AC. Subs can perform a variety of roles. Weapons...well besides the obvious missiles they can be used to hunt surface ships like AC's and can perform special ops. We are focused too much on AC's when there is no real defense available against chinese ballistic missiles. Limit it to 4 with support ships and keep on developing and enhancing our Sub fleet capabilities.

 

[tushar]

1 Aircraft carrier @ 2.5 billion $

We arre not spending so much on one AC....which AC are you talking about ?? INS Vikrant is costing only $ 762 million and INS Vikaramaditya deal was worth 2.35 billion$. The deal also includes the purchase of 12 single-seat Mikoyan MiG-29K 'Fulcrum-D' and 4 dual-seat MiG-29KUB aircraft at US$1 billion, 6 Kamov Ka-31 "Helix" reconnaissance and anti-submarine helicopters, torpedo tubes, missile systems, and artillery units.

4 SSN @ 7-10 billion $

When was this sanctioned ???

8 P28A corvettes @ 2 billion $

We haven't yet sanctioned money for P28 yet man....please tell me if i am missing something out ?? Please share these info because i might have missed some of these....

 

[Dash]

Stupidity? Are you serious? Why would say a statement is stupid without even knowing the capabilities of a Sub??? Look at the weapons inventory your adversaries have.

I didnt call that statement Stupid, I said if we dont invest in ACs then it will be stupidity. Read carefully.
Our adversaries have what?, some SSBN and some SSNs right, but what do they carry, some torpedos and some land attack missiles right?, so what does those missile do??, Either destroy a ship or destroy a land target, correct?...But thats not what ACs do. ACs do much more than that. an Aircraft carrier though valunerable to antiship, yet does a perfect role than a SUB.

AC's are sitting ducks and in their future is questionable. Subs are the greatest weapons that the USN has not AC's. Ac's serve a purpose though but are not the best weapons. Remember in 1971, India was lucky its AC did not get destroyed.....remember luck!

I will not compare our ACs, but lets take USN for example. They are not afradid of that anti ship BM of China and building the Ford class. Why?, coz its still a myth if that will hit an AC, which keeps moving at a speed of 30 knots.

Second logic - If AC is valunerable then a SUB is like that too. If sensors are advancing then SONARS too. detection and destroy is a war game which nobody can escape, but what makes you win id ADVANTAGE which an AC has.

China built more Subs coz they had a sea denial theory to US, Subs are mainly for see denial. If you want advantage in sea, then one AC with 100 planes and marines will do.

. We are focused too much on AC's when there is no real defense available against chinese ballistic missiles. Limit it to 4 with support ships and keep on developing and enhancing our Sub fleet capabilities.

You sound like a person who is afraid to take risks, just because there is a no defence available. like I said in war, ACs will sink, but sink after giving you the advantages. which SUBs will never give you.

Subs were built to destry AC and its advantage. not to perform their role. You cant compare them.

 

[harpoon]

If a country is looking for force projection ACs are the way to go. It enables a country to launch attack on any country that has a beach. However India's rivals share land border with India. We don't have to go across the oceans to fight Pakistan or China. So large scale investment in ACs is unwise. 4 is more than enough for us unless and until we want to pick up fights in South America or Africa.

About the Submarine vs AC debate, it all depends on the strategic planning of the country concerned. During Cold War Soviets did not invested in ACs as their enemies were all located in Europe (Except US) while US depended heavily on ACs to keep their Atlantic & Pacific routes open.

 

[jha]

Its useless to keep adding AC in inventory if the required no. of support ships are not available..We need good submarines with CBG which we dont have..Unless ARIHANTH class is inducted its no use to have more than 2 ACs..

 

[Urbanized Greyhound]

Its useless to keep adding AC in inventory if the required no. of support ships are not available..We need good submarines with CBG which we dont have..Unless ARIHANTH class is inducted its no use to have more than 2 ACs..

We can always lease or buy more nuke subs - Akulas etc from Russia if we are serious about 3 CBG's ...according to our requirements ...

 

[jha]

We can always lease or buy more nuke subs - Akulas etc from Russia if we are serious about 3 CBG's ...according to our requirements ...

Not always sir..Gone are the days when Russia had to resort to such measures ...
Do you know how many hurdles IN is facing in getting the second AKULA... Its either indigenous subs or, forget about third CBG..

 

[Archie]

We arre not spending so much on one AC....which AC are you talking about ?? INS Vikrant is costing only $ 762 million and INS Vikaramaditya deal was worth 2.35 billion$. The deal also includes the purchase of 12 single-seat Mikoyan MiG-29K 'Fulcrum-D' and 4 dual-seat MiG-29KUB aircraft at US$1 billion, 6 Kamov Ka-31 "Helix" reconnaissance and anti-submarine helicopters, torpedo tubes, missile systems, and artillery units.


When was this sanctioned ???


We haven't yet sanctioned money for P28 yet man....please tell me if i am missing something out ?? Please share these info because i might have missed some of these....

Tushar bhai read my last post again

I had specifically mentioned that i have not taken aircrafts and ships which were funded or sanctioned during the last defence plan between 1997-2007
I have not mentioned IAC1 in my post but IAC2 which is expected to be inducted by 2022
The figure of 762 Million USD which u have quoted for IAC1 , was actually the dumb estimate made when actual project began in 2003 , which by the way was for a 32000 ton Air Defence Ship not an aircraft carrier
The term Aircraft carrier was first used when design was enhanced to 37000 Ton when construction actually began in 2005 ,
Also when the keel was laid for IAC1 in 2009 , it was for a 40000 ton Aircraft carrier

DO U KNOW THE COST OF KOLKATA CLASS AIRCRAFT CARRIER
THE 3 KOLKATA CLASS WARSHIPS WOULD COST US 11800 CRORES ie 3900 crore per unit or 880 million USD each , which is more than the initial estimated cost of IAC1
My question is how can u say that an aircraft carrier which is 6 times larger than the Destroyer and will carry more firepower than a destroyer aparft from its complement of Fighters and Helis , could cost less than a Destroyer

The current cost estimate for IAC 1 is Rs 5600 Cr or nearly 1.25 Billion USD
Funding for the ship was provided in 2005 alone and it was enhanced in 2009

I had taken a conservative estimation of cost of IAC2 considering the fact that it will be a 50000-65000 ton CATOBAR Carrier capable of operating 45-50 aircrafts in total

As far as SSN submarines are concerned , well navy had requested a fleet of 6 SSBN and 9 SSN
But they have only got aproval for 4 SSBN and 4 SSN
Earlier GOI had aproved 3 Arihant class Subs , a 4th one was only aproved in 2010 along with 4 SSN ,
Thats coz navies argument was that they need atleast 2 nuclear armed subs at sea at all time so as to ensure an effective deterent against the chinese , thats mainly due to the fact that A Arihant class SSBN will carry only 12-16 Nuclear warhead compared to Vanguard class which carry 48 and TRIOMPHANT Class which carry 100

The combined cost of building 4 Arihant class Subs is estimated at Rs 16000 cr or 3.6 billion USD USD , this figure doesnot include over 5000 cr spend on R&D ,
The 4 SSN which were aproved are expected to enter service between yr 2021-27

My over all analysis was based on the fact that navy has been alloted 60 Billion USD out of the 150 Billion USD which India will spend between 2007-22
I had also mentioned that P75I and SSN program will require funding till about 2027

Some of the figures which i have mentioned are actually my assumption based on what a similar project is costing us today and adding amt for enhanced capability and cost inflation

 

[axisofevil]

I didnt call that statement Stupid, I said if we dont invest in ACs then it will be stupidity. Read carefully.
Our adversaries have what?, some SSBN and some SSNs right, but what do they carry, some torpedos and some land attack missiles right?, so what does those missile do??, Either destroy a ship or destroy a land target, correct?...But thats not what ACs do. ACs do much more than that. an Aircraft carrier though valunerable to antiship, yet does a perfect role than a SUB.






I will not compare our ACs, but lets take USN for example. They are not afradid of that anti ship BM of China and building the Ford class. Why?, coz its still a myth if that will hit an AC, which keeps moving at a speed of 30 knots.

Second logic - If AC is valunerable then a SUB is like that too. If sensors are advancing then SONARS too. detection and destroy is a war game which nobody can escape, but what makes you win id ADVANTAGE which an AC has.

China built more Subs coz they had a sea denial theory to US, Subs are mainly for see denial. If you want advantage in sea, then one AC with 100 planes and marines will do.



You sound like a person who is afraid to take risks, just because there is a no defence available. like I said in war, ACs will sink, but sink after giving you the advantages. which SUBs will never give you.

Subs were built to destry AC and its advantage. not to perform their role. You cant compare them.

I AM NOT AFRAID OF RISKS....WHEN POSTERS ON THIS FORUM POINT OUT COST ESCALATION I GO FOR WHAT IS MOST APPROPRIATE FOR OUR DEFENSE NEEDS. If the greatest navies in the world invest more in their sub tech there must be a reason right? France and UK have more subs than AC's and its not only related to cost. Its efficiency and more strategic to field subs....Like Harpoon stated if we have a war in the future we should be more concerned with sea denial than force projection that being said I am open to AC's but no way should be inducting more 4....it makes no sense. Subs are the present and the future. If the chinese ballistic missile is not ready according to various reports what makes you think it wont be ready in the near future. Take the report for what it highlights.....that China has and is investing in tech that can and will destroy AC's ....it is a project that is already be tested......What is a role of an AC besides carrying fighters???? Risks why take stupid risks when you better weapons available that do a better job....you my friend need to take some time and take into count India's geography, her greatest strengths, her weaknesses, and come to an conclusion.

 

[axisofevil]

Its useless to keep adding AC in inventory if the required no. of support ships are not available..We need good submarines with CBG which we dont have..Unless ARIHANTH class is inducted its no use to have more than 2 ACs..

About time someone with sense has posted something I can agree with. AC's are sitting ducks.....simply because our leaders lack the will to use it properly

 

[jha]

About time someone with sense has posted something I can agree with. AC's are sitting ducks.....simply because our leaders lack the will to use it properly

Other thing which people here keep forgetting that the kind of force projection India needs to have for securing its commercial routes are best served by LHD/LPD not AC...Getting some potent LHD/LPDs and SSNs should top the priority list of IN..

 

[jdme]

If it's indigenous, it's never going to happen. Never surely is long long away.

 

[sancho]

I think for countering future thread we need 5 a/c 2 on each side. 2 40000T(Vikramaditya + IAC1) at Arabian sea and 2 bigger size (Q/E around 650000T) in the side of Bay of Bengal coze of bigger thread. But before this we need to increase our sub., FFG & DDG fleet.

We already have a carrier in the Bay of Bengal

Veer Savarkar International Airport - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Car Nicobar Air Force Base - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Put a Su 30 squadron there and you can cover the whole Bay of Bengal including the neighboring countries, which means we only need carriers for the Arabian Sea (Vikramaditya + IAC1) and bigger carriers with more range and endurance for long distance operations (IAC2 + 3)

China built more Subs coz they had a sea denial theory to US, Subs are mainly for see denial. If you want advantage in sea, then one AC with 100 planes and marines will do.

Hi Dash, I think this is the important part, because if we aim on China, the biggest threats are their SSBNs and SSGNs, not their future carriers. A single of these subs is more than difficult to find and would need so many resources of IN, not to mention that what damage they could bring to a country with such a large costal area like India. Keep in mind that PLAN SSBNs have way more capable balistic missiles then we have, so even from long distance, they can easily take out our naval, or airforce bases, or entire cities.
On the other hand, their carriers will only be available in small numbers and combined with a battle group they are easy to find with our satellite and surveillance capabilities, especially because the way they have to come to reach India, are predictable (Strait of Malacca, or around Indonesia), a credible defence against these can be set up way easier then against the subs, because we could not only use the resources of IN, but also land based fighters and aircrafts of IAF against them.
It is also the same, if we think about offensive tactics! IF IN would have to attack China, SSBNs and SSGNs are the most important assets that we have, for the same reasons (hard to detect, available in higher numbers, with a more deadly payload), while IAC2 will be the secondary and more conventional assets, in case we have to deploy fighters to a greater distance.
Vikramaditya and IAC1 are more meant for possible conflicts with Pakistan, because they can cover the Arabian Sea, would pose an air threat to their costline and more importantly the carriers could gain sea control and cut supply routes of oil and weapons. Again if we put China in this situation, any assistance of them would be by sending subs with weapons, Oil, or spares, because cargo ships and other surface vessels would be to easy to intercept for IN.

 

[faithfulguy]

If it's indigenous, it's never going to happen. Never surely is long long away.

I totally agree with your statement. If most Indians in here have your view, India would be a much better country.