This is a discussion on Indian Navy - 3 Carriers or more within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by nero
PA2 (Porte-Avions 2) is the best option , india should buy the PA2 (Porte-Avions 2) aircraft-carrier ...
PA2 (Porte-Avions 2) is the best option , india should buy the PA2 (Porte-Avions 2) aircraft-carrier from france off the shelf
they will complement the scorpene SSks very well
as far as i know they are most likely to be armed with two 8 cell SYLVER launchers carrying the MBDA Aster 15 surface to air missiles & Giat 20F2 20 mm cannons
a 70,000 tonne displacement carrier with 20 rafales on board will pack quite a punch
if India gets that spanking new French carrier off the drawing block, and get it nuke powered, it would make Indian Navy a force to be reckoned with, a true blue navy. But its not necessary to have rafales flying from it, as I think the MiG 29 is more than capable of launching using catapults. but I doubt it would happen. There will be a backlash in France for letting another country to have the jewel of their navy while they have to cancel their plans.
and regarding the IAC, why does Indis build 2 different tonnage carriers? why not go with the 60 k+ tonnage carrier from the 1st in its class? These things are not cheap, hence if they are spending big, why not make sure there are no regrets later on?
It was during this recent crisis tht a go-ahead was given for 3 carriers by Prime Minister Putin, given tht funds are getting allocated for the same internaly i doubt if russian will go on the backfoot reg carrier developement, even if this goes on a back foot then its still advantage India as hopefully any skilled professionals working on the gorshkov might not be pulled for the carrier projects as such snigger snigger
Have any sources on that? I haven't heard about that. I've read only about plans for beginning designation but not building.
and regarding the IAC, why does Indis build 2 different tonnage carriers? why not go with the 60 k+ tonnage carrier from the 1st in its class? These things are not cheap, hence if they are spending big, why not make sure there are no regrets later on?
I am assuming that since India did not have prior experience in carrier construction when the project started it was initiated as an Air Defense ship and am sure the intention was to patrol and defend India's Exclusive Martime Zone as well other assets in the area and once the project started (might I add surprisingly lesser inputs from russians on this one unlike the the ATV project - Italians on the other hand have partnered in the design work) the construction gave further confidence to the govt to go for a second albeit bigger carrier to be domestically build, even now they are going cautious on it. The govt of india is scheduled give the order in 2010 after "a certain stage of progression on the current construction"
3 to 4 medium sized carriers (30000 to 40000 tons),i believe would be perfect for the indian navy force projection needs,especially considering that china hopes to acquire iits own carriers,however even a single super carrier(50000+ tons) would be an overkill and considerably expensive,as it will imply a lot of change to the infrastructure,none of the indian bases have berthing capability for such a huge vessel,and as of now only cochin shipyards limited can accomodate vessels of 100000+ tons india,incidentally this shipyard will build the remaining carriers,however in the long run l and t and ruia shipbuilders would build shipyards capable of berthing such large vessels ,but then these are purely commercial ventures as of now and would not be directly under the control of the indian navy.
i would suggest a fleet of 3 to 4 carriers of 30000 to 40000 ton displacement preferably with nuclear propulsion like the french charles de gaulle.
3 to 4 medium sized carriers (30000 to 40000 tons),i believe would be perfect for the indian navy force projection needs,especially considering that china hopes to acquire iits own carriers,however even a single super carrier(50000+ tons) would be an overkill and considerably expensive,as it will imply a lot of change to the infrastructure,none of the indian bases have berthing capability for such a huge vessel,and as of now only cochin shipyards limited can accomodate vessels of 100000+ tons india,incidentally this shipyard will build the remaining carriers,however in the long run l and t and ruia shipbuilders would build shipyards capable of berthing such large vessels ,but then these are purely commercial ventures as of now and would not be directly under the control of the indian navy.
i would suggest a fleet of 3 to 4 carriers of 30000 to 40000 ton displacement preferably with nuclear propulsion like the french charles de gaulle.
i disgree with you adi , 3-4 medium A/C will not suit IN . They must need one Large A/C . Because if you will take 3-4 medium sized carriers you will have to built alot more escorts for them , i think IN cant manage that . instead of 2 medium sized carriers , they must build one 80,000+ tons carriers . Which carry up to 30+ Aircrafts .
i disgree with you adi , 3-4 medium A/C will not suit IN . They must need one Large A/C . Because if you will take 3-4 medium sized carriers you will have to built alot more escorts for them , i think IN cant manage that . instead of 2 medium sized carriers , they must build one 80,000+ tons carriers . Which carry up to 30+ Aircrafts .
Not sure where you get your numbers from - but an 80,000 tonne carrier would be carrying something in the region of 70+ aircraft (It's between the Midway and Forrestal Class in size)
Also, there is no point in only having one major asset - if you do it will be offline for at least 1 year in every 3-4-5 years for heavy maint.
You get better redundancy with multiples - and you can always merge task forces - which is what the USN had done a number of times.
________________ A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
Not sure where you get your numbers from - but an 80,000 tonne carrier would be carrying something in the region of 70+ aircraft (It's between the Midway and Forrestal Class in size)
Also, there is no point in only having one major asset - if you do it will be offline for at least 1 year in every 3-4-5 years for heavy maint.
The USN started building supercarriers (Forrestal class, ~80,000 tonnes) so they could operate all year round in the very rough northern waters off the Soviet Union. As long as India isn't planning on fighting a major naval battle off the Kerguelen Islands in the south of the Indian Ocean then medium sized carriers would be adequate platforms.
For operations inside the Indian Ocean conventional power is the best option as it doesn't limit the ship's endurance too much when they are so 'close' to home (2-3,000km at the most) and of course costs so much less. The complexity and risk of building nuclear power alongside building a carrier for a Navy that doesn't need to fight on the far side of the world would be a huge waste and program delaying mistake.
Since the Indian Navy has the tradition of naming their carriers with a word starting with V would they call a carrier Vishnu? Certainly I would imagine an INS Vijay would join the Vikrant, Viraat and Vikramaditya.
The USN started building supercarriers (Forrestal class, ~80,000 tonnes) so they could operate all year round in the very rough northern waters off the Soviet Union. As long as India isn't planning on fighting a major naval battle off the Kerguelen Islands in the south of the Indian Ocean then medium sized carriers would be adequate platforms.
For operations inside the Indian Ocean conventional power is the best option as it doesn't limit the ship's endurance too much when they are so 'close' to home (2-3,000km at the most) and of course costs so much less. The complexity and risk of building nuclear power alongside building a carrier for a Navy that doesn't need to fight on the far side of the world would be a huge waste and program delaying mistake.
Since the Indian Navy has the tradition of naming their carriers with a word starting with V would they call a carrier Vishnu? Certainly I would imagine an INS Vijay would join the Vikrant, Viraat and Vikramaditya.
totally agree, medium sized carriers is absolutely appropriate for what they are doing. At least for the medium term, India's goal is dominate the Indian Ocean region. 45,000 tonne class shipe is certainly adequate for this, although I think they'd eventually look for something in the Queen Elizabeth class.
i disgree with you adi , 3-4 medium A/C will not suit IN . They must need one Large A/C . Because if you will take 3-4 medium sized carriers you will have to built alot more escorts for them , i think IN cant manage that . instead of 2 medium sized carriers , they must build one 80,000+ tons carriers . Which carry up to 30+ Aircrafts .
The IN has so far been a single carrier navy and it has been assesed that only one carrier (esp old ones) limit the operational availability of a carrier round the clock. Carriers are designed keeping in mind long service periods (the recently retired carrier and the one being retired this month-USN- wll have serrved approx 40 yrs each) which also requires these carriers to be continously updated (atleast once in 5-8 yrs apprx) with new and improved systems(the Viraat was recently upgraded with a SAM system - i think barack) apart from which they will need refits as well as regular maintenance and repair work - which for a hughe ship would mean a longer time.
Big or small IN would need more than one carrier to have a carrier operating round the clock
As long as India isn't planning on fighting a major naval battle off the Kerguelen Islands in the south of the Indian Ocean then medium sized carriers would be adequate platforms.
For operations inside the Indian Ocean conventional power is the best option as it doesn't limit the ship's endurance too much when they are so 'close' to home (2-3,000km at the most) and of course costs so much less.
Quote:
Since the Indian Navy has the tradition of naming their carriers with a word starting with V would they call a carrier Vishnu? Certainly I would imagine an INS Vijay would join the Vikrant, Viraat and Vikramaditya.
The IN stated doctrine is to be a Blue Water Navy and for this purpose it's philosophy has been that of long range missions - it has in the last 5 yrs made so many port calls (am not even including the sailing ship which visited about 80 countries - i think - in its circumnavigation trip) and displayed its flag - these goodwill missions are also to display the INs prowess. During the the Tsunami the Indian Navy was the first navy to reach Indonesia with relief supplies (5450 kms) The IN is now near Somalian waters (approx 3200 kms) India has a listening post in madagascar (about 5500 KMs). India needs a navy which can dominate the Indian Ocean as the primary naval power. It will also need access to the gulf of aden and the gulf of oman as well as the persian gulf as this area is of vital economic and security concerns to India (tens of millions of Indians work and send home much valued forex - foriegn remittances are actualy India's largest source of forex - even bigger than IT and ITES industry, also India has large investments in oil exploration and releated areas)
The IN stated doctrine is to be a Blue Water Navy and for this purpose it's philosophy has been that of long range missions - it has in the last 5 yrs made so many port calls (am not even including the sailing ship which visited about 80 countries - i think - in its circumnavigation trip) and displayed its flag - these goodwill missions are also to display the INs prowess. During the the Tsunami the Indian Navy was the first navy to reach Indonesia with relief supplies (5450 kms) The IN is now near Somalian waters (approx 3200 kms) India has a listening post in madagascar (about 5500 KMs). India needs a navy which can dominate the Indian Ocean as the primary naval power. It will also need access to the gulf of aden and the gulf of oman as well as the persian gulf as this area is of vital economic and security concerns to India (tens of millions of Indians work and send home much valued forex - foriegn remittances are actualy India's largest source of forex - even bigger than IT and ITES industry, also India has large investments in oil exploration and releated areas)
Just quietly, I'm not so sure carriers are the way to go about (to paraphrase) "dominating the Indian Ocean".
The Indian Ocean is a big place, with very few land masses and/or population centers within it. This creates very few SLOCs, 1 with heavy traffic density, 1 medium density and 4 lightly traveled.
Therefore the Indian Ocean can be "dominated" by a reasonably decent recon and survelliance operation with assets (submarines are a good example) to act upon the information.
If you were to use carriers to do same (as above) then 2 groups would be required to provide influence over the densely travelled SLOC (East and West) and they would have little to no impact upon the other SLOCs (although Indian Ballistic Missile tests have an irritating habit of disrupting some of the others with falling debris).
Seems like the IN already have a reasonable idea of what they want to do and how to do it.
Therefore the Indian Ocean can be "dominated" by a reasonably decent recon and survelliance operation with assets (submarines are a good example) to act upon the information.
I too believe tht subs would be the ideal platform for patrols in the straits of Malacca (am assuming thts the SLOC u meant having the highest traffic). India needs long range nuc-attack subs for tht, pl refer to the thread below regarding the same
If you were to use carriers to do same (as above) then 2 groups would be required to provide influence over the densely travelled SLOC (East and West) and they would have little to no impact upon the other SLOCs
Precisely why i think India needs 4 carrier groups with one in rotation while the other SLOCs can be monitored by the subs and long range marine recon planes (India just signed a deal for 8 P-81 with the US)
Quote:
(although Indian Ballistic Missile tests have an irritating habit of disrupting some of the others with falling debris).
Am surprised that Indian tests disprut traffic, the primary Indian test site is chandipur in orissa on the Bay of bengal, but i guess with the IGMDP coming to maturity (except perhaps the rumoured Surya ICBM) and the recent procurement of a new test site by the DRDO it looks like this will gradualy phase out - till India plans out a big cruise missile program (long range unlike brahmos )
I too believe tht subs would be the ideal platform for patrols in the straits of Malacca (am assuming thts the SLOC u meant having the highest traffic). India needs long range nuc-attack subs for tht, pl refer to the thread below regarding the same
A few problems with that idea. Firstly, the Malacca Straits are shallow, with the deep channel in some parts being no more than 25 metres deep. Very poor water for nuclear attack subs. Secondly, they're very congested. And third, they're mostly territorial waters of the littoral states.
BTW, what would you envisage nuclear attack subs doing in such waters? I don't see a role they could perform there that couldn't be done better by cheaper assets.
A few problems with that idea. Firstly, the Malacca Straits are shallow, with the deep channel in some parts being no more than 25 metres deep. Very poor water for nuclear attack subs. Secondly, they're very congested. And third, they're mostly territorial waters of the littoral states.
BTW, what would you envisage nuclear attack subs doing in such waters? I don't see a role they could perform there that couldn't be done better by cheaper assets.
Ofcourse - the idea is not to patrol the channel but rather at the choke points where it enters into the indian ocean. In the channel itself a sub itself looks pretty vulnearble besides which for a "friendly" navy it would only cause tensions with Malaysia and Indonesia. The context is patrolling effectively all the SLOCs in the Indian Ocean region and since it is a high traffic area the idea would be to remain submerged and undetected nuc-subs can do this much better than conventional subs - indian subs need to come up every now and then to recharge batteries etc, a nuc sub has a great range and doesnt need to surface and monitor silently the going ons. Current sub bases in india are a good 5400 kms away from this area and conventional subs wouldnt be the choice
That choke point can be covered by surface & air surveillance from the Andaman & Nicobar islands. Everything passing Malacca passes near them. If you want constant sonar coverage (why?), build a passive sonar array, or have ASW vessels based in the islands.
Using a nuclear submarine for constant surveillance of a choke point which is also one of the worlds busiest sea lanes is expensive & inefficient, & I can't see what purpose it serves. What exactly do you expect a nuclear attack sub to do at the mouth of the straits? You're not going to be taken by surprise by the PLAN sortieing through there.
snigger snigger 
