What's new

the effectiveness of the aircraft carrier

Moscow

BANNED
Joined
Dec 20, 2008
Messages
1,055
Reaction score
0
December 16, 2008: All of a sudden, six nations are building aircraft carriers (the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, India and China.) For over half a century, most of the carrier building took place in the United States. Russia built some, without much success, towards the end of the Cold War. Britain and France built a few, and several other nations (like India and Brazil), bought second had British carriers so they could maintain one or two in service.

But now six nations are planning or building new carriers, most of them a bit smaller (about 60,000 tons) than the larger U.S. ones (100,000 tons). Britain recently delayed construction, for a year or two, of its two new carriers, but is still determined to go ahead. France has a new one in the works, as does India. China has been cagey about its carrier plans, but all indications are that it is definitely headed that way. Russian admirals are speaking openly about building four or more additional carriers (Russia already has one of its last Cold War carriers refurbished and in service.) The current global economic recession is delaying, but not cancelling, some of these carrier building plans.

Why all this sudden interest in carriers? Partly it's because the United States has consistently demonstrated the usefulness of having a carrier that can quickly show up off a troublesome coast. Moreover, the 2001 operation in Afghanistan was a success partly because carriers were there, using smart bombs, to deliver a decisive amount of firepower. Thus demonstrating that, with the new, more precise weapons, one carrier can have a much more decisive impact than in the past. But partly it's because of the end of the Cold War, and a tremendous growth in world economies. Russia, China and India have larger GDPs, and defense budgets, than they have ever had. Gotta spend it on something, and carriers are a sign that you've joined the Big Boys Club.




why is there such a great interest in aircraft carriers? other than the show of might its very difficult to maintain< as you need a lot of support cover>also costly.isnt the next war be fought with uavs, icbms, and subs.
 
.
does russia is planning to sell china new built AC in future and russia is clos ally of china or close ally od india what russia prefers china or india
 
.
does russia is planning to sell china new built AC in future and russia is clos ally of china or close ally od india what russia prefers china or india

China is Russia's # 1 Arms Custoemr where as India is # 2.

This is the reason both Indian and China have many similar weapons.

There is no side taking for Russia when it comes to India and China.
 
.
December 16, 2008: All of a sudden, six nations are building aircraft carriers (the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, India and China.) For over half a century, most of the carrier building took place in the United States. Russia built some, without much success, towards the end of the Cold War. Britain and France built a few, and several other nations (like India and Brazil), bought second had British carriers so they could maintain one or two in service.

But now six nations are planning or building new carriers, most of them a bit smaller (about 60,000 tons) than the larger U.S. ones (100,000 tons). Britain recently delayed construction, for a year or two, of its two new carriers, but is still determined to go ahead. France has a new one in the works, as does India. China has been cagey about its carrier plans, but all indications are that it is definitely headed that way. Russian admirals are speaking openly about building four or more additional carriers (Russia already has one of its last Cold War carriers refurbished and in service.) The current global economic recession is delaying, but not cancelling, some of these carrier building plans.

Why all this sudden interest in carriers? Partly it's because the United States has consistently demonstrated the usefulness of having a carrier that can quickly show up off a troublesome coast. Moreover, the 2001 operation in Afghanistan was a success partly because carriers were there, using smart bombs, to deliver a decisive amount of firepower. Thus demonstrating that, with the new, more precise weapons, one carrier can have a much more decisive impact than in the past. But partly it's because of the end of the Cold War, and a tremendous growth in world economies. Russia, China and India have larger GDPs, and defense budgets, than they have ever had. Gotta spend it on something, and carriers are a sign that you've joined the Big Boys Club.




why is there such a great interest in aircraft carriers? other than the show of might its very difficult to maintain< as you need a lot of support cover>also costly.isnt the next war be fought with uavs, icbms, and subs.


As far as India is concerned we are maintaning a carrier since 1961. Now the 2nd Carrier is about to retire and Admiral Gorshkov is a stop gap. So obviously we need an alternate so we are building a carrier.

As per the new IN doctorine we whould have 3 carriers all the time beginning 2017-2020.
 
.
china buys Russian Equipment because the Americans and Europeans dont sell them anything worthwhile! Russia is their only hope for tech. Whereas India and Russian Relations are deep. Remember in 71 Russia had agreed to Repel any chinese or American attacks on India and Kept its promise too by trailing a Nuclear Sub with the 7th fleet. Russian, when it comes to make a really tough choice, will obviously choose India.

Indian defence Markets have opened up, and western platforms are being Inducted. The Russians know they gotta provide the best arms to be in the race.
 
.
china buys Russian Equipment because the Americans and Europeans dont sell them anything worthwhile! Russia is their only hope for tech. Whereas India and Russian Relations are deep. Remember in 71 Russia had agreed to Repel any chinese or American attacks on India and Kept its promise too by trailing a Nuclear Sub with the 7th fleet. Russian, when it comes to make a really tough choice, will obviously choose India.

Indian defence Markets have opened up, and western platforms are being Inducted. The Russians know they gotta provide the best arms to be in the race.

Yes but in today's world India is under the US influence, do not expect a instant Russian support for India ... as was clearly seen in the saga of RD-93 engine for PAF JF-17 !
 
.
Yes but in today's world India is under the US influence, do not expect a instant Russian support for India ... as was clearly seen in the saga of RD-93 engine for PAF JF-17 !

I explained, the world wants to give India arms, the Russians know this and they are at an advantage! They make the best and Cheapest arms. They have cost factor and operational backup on their hand. They are a better position compared to others.
 
.
I explained, the world wants to give India arms,

Correction, the world wants to sell India arms (preferably without parting with the tech)

the Russians know this and they are at an advantage! They make the best and Cheapest arms. They have cost factor and operational backup on their hand. They are a better position compared to others.

The Russians certainly sell among the cheapest arms but whether they are the best is up for heavy debate. They may be cheap but in India's past experience they are not that reliable, although the industrial base to support them is already there and it would cost a lot to set up a wholly new one. However for India they are a more reliable supplier as long as India doesn't cosy up to the US, even if the contract for new equipment states that supplies should be available even if there are sanctions doesn't mean that in practice they would be available. The Government would overrule the company in this case.
 
.
Correction, the world wants to sell India arms (preferably without parting with the tech)



The Russians certainly sell among the cheapest arms but whether they are the best is up for heavy debate. They may be cheap but in India's past experience they are not that reliable, although the industrial base to support them is already there and it would cost a lot to set up a wholly new one. However for India they are a more reliable supplier as long as India doesn't cosy up to the US, even if the contract for new equipment states that supplies should be available even if there are sanctions doesn't mean that in practice they would be available. The Government would overrule the company in this case.


Sirji, The Russians make the best Arms, but the Way the buyers use them is the thing which determines it. For Eg: Saddam Hussain started manufacturing the Lion of Babylon tanks (T 72) but he made them not like the Russians did, the Iraqis stripped down the tank to a bare minimum and ruined the whole damn tank. Thats why it was so pathetic.

As for the Mig29 performing badly in Iraq, well A 4th Gen aircraft requires 4th Gen Training and Infrastructure! Not everyone can Drive a Ferrari the way a Professional does, can they? They get stuck with the stick! Same happened.

Hence, its not the arms maker who is at fault if the buyer doesnt now how to use it. As for India, it has invested heavily in Russian arms and it has yielded results too.
 
.
Sirji, The Russians make the best Arms, but the Way the buyers use them is the thing which determines it. For Eg: Saddam Hussain started manufacturing the Lion of Babylon tanks (T 72) but he made them not like the Russians did, the Iraqis stripped down the tank to a bare minimum and ruined the whole damn tank. Thats why it was so pathetic.

As for the Mig29 performing badly in Iraq, well A 4th Gen aircraft requires 4th Gen Training and Infrastructure! Not everyone can Drive a Ferrari the way a Professional does, can they? They get stuck with the stick! Same happened.

Hence, its not the arms maker who is at fault if the buyer doesnt now how to use it. As for India, it has invested heavily in Russian arms and it has yielded results too.

How do you qualify Russian arms as the best? Have you any evidence to back up that statement?

Western and Russian arms were built for different doctrines, Russians generally went for the ability for the product to be mass produced cheaply as well as being easier to use (conscript army) and convert to. Sacrificing survivability among others and with more complex products reliability was lost.
Western arms are designed to be more advanced, which could be afforded with the better economies and more professional armies (in the sense of full time contract soldiers) and capable of defeating forces equipped with Russian equipment while being outnumbered. Survivability being key. This is of course for large platforms like tanks and planes, for smaller arms basically Russians arms were designed for ruggedness, simple construction and ease of use, accuracy was sacrificed for this. They were designed for mass fire-power and not precision. While Western guns are generally more complex and expensive, as well as generally more accurate, often lighter and in recent years adaptability (often in the form of Picatinny rails) has become more important.
For guns in general if you are well trained in its use you want a Western gun, if you have no real training you want an AK.

The Iraqi's and other nations that have used Russian/Soviet equipment without success were using doctrines which they didn't have the ability to use, they didn't have the numbers to flood the sky with aircraft. They simply tried to use what they had been taught the best they could and get got cut down by superior forces.
 
.
Aircraft carriers are the best way to project your power. It's easier to send a carrier taskforce to a region than to deploy a few thousand troops, for example.
 
.
i just wanted to say , air craft carriers are the most advanced weapons for any nvy these dayz. dont u think pakistan wud hv considered them . but the cost buy them , if any country willing to sale ,is too high , n we cant build it . india has one alredy , i think. n its good , perhaps goin 4 others. so its not show of might , its is a commodity . but we cnt afford it.
:tsk:
 
.
Several nations which currently possess aircraft carriers are in the process of planning new classes to replace current ones. The world's navies still generally see the aircraft carrier as the main future capital ship, with developments such as the arsenal ship, which have been promoted as an alternative, seen as too limited in terms of flexibility.
Military experts such as John Keegan have noted that in any future naval conflict between reasonably evenly matched powers, all surface ships—including aircraft carriers—would be at extreme and disproportionate risk, mainly due to the advanced capabilities of satellite reconnaissance and anti-ship missiles. Contrary to the thrust of most current naval spending, Keegan therefore postulates that eventually most navies will move to submarines as their main fighting ships, including in roles where submarines play only a minor or no role at the moment.
A "blue water navy" is designed to operate far from the coastal waters of its home nation. Aircraft Carriers are capable of maintaining station for long periods of time in deep ocean, and will have a long logistical tail for their support. Many are also nuclear powered to save having to refuel.
but for pakistan its better to buy a helicopter carrier or a amphibious assault ship (Force Projection Vessel) Like (French DCNS Mistral Class LHD) instead of purchasing an aircraft carrier like INS Viraat or INS Vikrant with old sea harriers onboard.

Mistral has the capability to be use as a helicopter carrier with its 6 helicopter landing spots and the capacity to accomodate 16 heavy or 35 light helicopters. The flight deck of each ship is approximately 6,400 square metres (69,000 sq ft).

The Mistral is also an efficient commandement and control center. with a 850-square-metre (9,100 sq ft) command centre which can host up to 150 personnel. Information from the ship's sensors is centralised in the SENIT system (Système d’Exploitation Navale des Informations Tactiques, "System for Naval Usage of Tactical Information"), a derivative of the US Navy's Naval Tactical Data System (NTDS). SENIT 9 is based around Thales' tri-dimensional MRR3D-NG Multi Role Radar, which operations on the C band and incorporates IFF capabilities. SENIT 9 also be connected to NATO data exchange formats through Link 11, Link 16 and Link 22.

As of 2008, the two Mistral class ships were armed with two Simbad launchers for Mistral missiles, two Brenda Mauser 30 mm/70 guns, and four 12.7 mm M2-HB Browning machine guns.

With its powerful communications system, its fully redundant equipment and excellent maneuvering capabilities, it plays a pivotal role in the deployment of peacekeepers, in deterrence or the projection of naval power. Mistral class ships can accommodate up to 450 soldiers, although this can be doubled for short-term deployments. The 2,650-square-metre (28,500 sq ft) vehicle hangar can carry a 40-strong Leclerc tank battalion, or a 13-strong Leclerc tank company and 46 other vehicles. By comparison, Foudre class ships can carry up to 100 vehicles, including 22 AMX-30 tanks in the significantly smaller 1,000-square-metre (11,000 sq ft) deck. The 885-square-metre (9,530 sq ft) well deck can accommodate four landing craft. The ships are capable of operating two LCAC hovercraft, and although the French Navy appears to have no intention of purchasing any LCACs, this capability improves the class' ability to interoperate with the United States Marine Corps and the Royal Navy. The LCACs can make landfall on 70% of the coastlines of the world; conventional landing craft can only make landfall on 30%, as they are limited to sand beaches or swamps. The DGA is contemplating modernisation of the landing craft fleet with 59-tonne landing crafts (EDA, Engins de débarquement amphibies).

Mistral can also be used as a Hospital ship. Each ship carries a NATO Role 3 medical facility, comparable to the hospital of a 25,000-inhabitant city. Any pathology can be treated aboard, including complex issues like neurosurgery, though the use of a SYRACUSE-based telemedicine system.
The hospital provides 20 rooms. There are two surgery blocks with 7 intensive care beds, and a radiology room fitted with a scanner. Capacity is 69 beds, including 50 for intensive care, but it can be extended to 120 beds by installing a mobile medical facility in the helicopter hangar.

Type:landing platform helicopter
Displacement:16,500 tons (empty)
21,300 tons (full load)
32,300 tons (with ballasts)
Length:199 metres (650 ft)
Beam:32 metres (100 ft)
Draught:6.3 metres (21 ft)
Installed power:3 Wärtsilä diesels-alternators 16 V32 (6,2 MW) + 1 Wärtsilä Vasaa auxiliary diesel-alternator 18V200 (3 MW)
Propulsion:2 Mermaïd electric motors (2 × 7 MW), 2 5-bladed propellers
Speed:18.8 knots (35 km/h)
Range:10,800 kilometres (5,800 nmi) at 18 knots (33 km/h)
19,800 kilometres (10,700 nmi) at 15 knots (28 km/h)
Boats and landing
craft carried:4 CTM (chaland de transport de matériel)
alternatively, 2 LCAC (Landing Craft, Air Cushion)
Capacity:59 vehicles (including 13 Leclerc tanks) or a 40-strong Leclerc tank battalion
Troops:900 (short duration)
450 (long durations)
150 (serving as operational headquaters)
Complement:20 officers, 80 petty officers, 60 quarter-masters
Sensors and processing systems:DRBN-38A Decca Bridgemaster E250 navigation radar
MRR3D-NG air/surface sentry radar
2 optronic fire control systems
Armament:2 x Simbad systems
2 x 30 mm Breda-Mauser guns
4 x 12.7 mm M2-HB Browning machine guns
Aircraft carried:16 heavy or 35 light helicopters
Aviation facilities:6 helicopter landing spots

Export

Since 1997, and particularly since the Euronaval 2007, the Mistral type has been promoted for export. The "BPC family" comprises the BPC 140 (13,500 tonnes), the BPC 160 (16,700 tonnes) and the BPC 250 (24,542 tonnes, 214.5 metres (704 ft) long). The BPC 250 was the design from which the final Mistral class design was derived: the reduction in length and other modifications were a price-saving exercise.

According to the DGA, the South African Navy, the Deutsche Marine, the Canadian Forces Maritime Command, the Royal Malaysian Navy, and the Swedish Navy might show an interest in the ships. The Indian Navy has also expressed interest in the design of the Mistral type. Brazil and Turkey could in time consider purchasing BPCs. Algeria is also considering the purchase of two BPCs.

US Wasp or Tarawa class amphibious assault ships have much more facilities and aircrafts onboard as compare to Indian Navy aircraft carriers. and by the way american did not even call tarawa ro wasp class as aircraft carrier. they call them amphibious assault ship.
 
. . .

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom