The Carrier Dilemma: How Many is Enough?

[arp2041]

I am again saying that corvettes are not employed in CBG.

yup, u are right, CBG Viraat consists of 2 destroyers + 2 frigates + 1 support ship (risky affair??).

+ i think INS viky being a larger AC than Viraat should add 1 more ship to it's escort. I am shocked that it does not have a sub as a escort (Carrier battle group - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

 

[arp2041]

Sorry, I should have said Include the cost of aircraft, personnell, maintenance equipment etc.
but basically.. just for a CVBG

Construction Costs – $5.5 billion (not counting Aircraft) x 6 = $35 billion
Operating and Support Costs – $5-10 billion (Carrier with ACft,weapons,personell along with support ships based on 1/2 cost of similar US CBG) ..just the carrier takes up around $60-90 million dollars (based on 1/2 of US Carrier annual cost @ $150 million)
Other Costs(Construction overruns , delays ) – $1 billion(optimistic that there are minimal delays in the next 4 carriers)
Total Average Cost – $14.5 billion each x 6 = $84 billion (Not counting cost of Aircraft and their support equipment cost)

And I have not adjusted for possible inflation.
So even in the most optimistic case.. these 6 carrier will easily cost close to $90 Billion.

sir, if i m not wrong, than u are taking the cost of 90 billion dollars spread over some years, right?? If that is the case than the cost overall per year is less.

 

[manofwar]

Sorry, I should have said Include the cost of aircraft, personnell, maintenance equipment etc.
but basically.. just for a CVBG

Construction Costs – $5.5 billion (not counting Aircraft) x 6 = $35 billion
Operating and Support Costs – $5-10 billion (Carrier with ACft,weapons,personell along with support ships based on 1/2 cost of similar US CBG) ..just the carrier takes up around $60-90 million dollars (based on 1/2 of US Carrier annual cost @ $150 million)
Other Costs(Construction overruns , delays ) – $1 billion(optimistic that there are minimal delays in the next 4 carriers)
Total Average Cost – $14.5 billion each x 6 = $84 billion (Not counting cost of Aircraft and their support equipment cost)

And I have not adjusted for possible inflation.
So even in the most optimistic case.. these 6 carrier will easily cost close to $90 Billion.

Umm dude.......Isn't $5.5 billion/ carrier a little large amount??
I mean Vikramadtitya was considered overvalued at $ 2.3 billion and the New Vikrant is being built at just over a billion..........

 

[arp2041]

Umm dude.......Isn't $5.5 billion/ carrier a little large amount??
I mean Vikramadtitya was considered overvalued at $ 2.3 billion and the New Vikrant is being built at just over a billion..........

mate, here we are not just talking of a carrier but a CBG, whose complete cost turns out to be $5.5 billion.

 

[SQ8]

sir, if i m not wrong, than u are taking the cost of 90 billion dollars spread over some years, right?? If that is the case than the cost overall per year is less.

Correct.. but at the same time.. I am not adjusting for inflation..
for eg.. the B-2 Cost was started out at some $400 million when the program first started out...by 1997 it was up to $553 million..the actual cost to procure at the end is however $929 million..

 

[Abdi-Karim Elmi]

Its more likely that china will have a CVBG after USA..

 

[Banglar Lathial]

Indonesia should develop and induct at least three Carrier battle groups (or equivalent) for its three naval fleets, and possibly keep one carrier in reserve. Maybe Indonesia could develop another carrier battle group for safeguarding the route from Indonesia all the way to Hormuz and Red Sea down south to Madagascar as well. That's a huge area waiting to be 'protected. Indonesia should develop and acquire more than just 12 or 14 submarines that they plan to do now according to their concept of Minimum Essential Force, and not "just" some 200+ surface ships for their three fleets that they plan to induct now. They should enlarge their presence and assert themselves more, probably with a new president in the future, in areas of interest to them as their economic, political, and scientific clout continues to rise at the moment.

 

[Tshering22]

For that IN needs 4 carriers , NOT 3

But 3 will be active right? Remember with our defense budget, we can't operate all the 4 and afford to maintain CBGs for each of them simultaneously.

3 is the max we need, one for each region of Ocean we command: Arabian Sea, Indian Ocean (upto Madagascar and the two Mauritian islands we recently are about to acquire) and the Bay of Bengal.

 

[Tshering22]

Indonesia should develop and induct at least three Carrier battle groups (or equivalent) for its three naval fleets, and possibly keep one carrier in reserve. Maybe Indonesia could develop another carrier battle group for safeguarding the route from Indonesia all the way to Hormuz and Red Sea down south to Madagascar as well. That's a huge area waiting to be 'protected. Indonesia should develop and acquire more than just 12 or 14 submarines that they plan to do now according to their concept of Minimum Essential Force, and not "just" some 200+ surface ships for their three fleets that they plan to induct now. They should enlarge their presence and assert themselves more, probably with a new president in the future, in areas of interest to them as their economic, political, and scientific clout continues to rise at the moment.

Indonesia? Are you sure? They don't even have any enemy; why would they need CBGs?

If Indonesia was to arm like that, Australia would sound the Red Alert and all the administrators of Aus Air Power website would go into cardiac arrests.

 

[Abingdonboy]

Indonesia should develop and induct at least three Carrier battle groups (or equivalent) for its three naval fleets, and possibly keep one carrier in reserve. Maybe Indonesia could develop another carrier battle group for safeguarding the route from Indonesia all the way to Hormuz and Red Sea down south to Madagascar as well. That's a huge area waiting to be 'protected. Indonesia should develop and acquire more than just 12 or 14 submarines that they plan to do now according to their concept of Minimum Essential Force, and not "just" some 200+ surface ships for their three fleets that they plan to induct now. They should enlarge their presence and assert themselves more, probably with a new president in the future, in areas of interest to them as their economic, political, and scientific clout continues to rise at the moment.

Maybe Indonesia can consider this in 20-35 years time, right now and for the foreseeable future this is not sensible nor practical.

 

[Jade]

I think four is a good number. More than four is a over kill.

 

[Nishan_101]

If not over estimating then the future Navies might be based on SSK and SSBNs along with fewer LPDs(Nuclear ones).

 

[Nishan_101]

PN even can rethink and look towards JV on SSK, SSBN and even smaller ones like Andrasta too along with 7 LPDs(Nuclear ones).

 

[punnu83]

At least 7 i agree with

 

[punnu83]

At least 7 i agree with