The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
drnayar wrote: ↑21 Sep 2023 23:39
Indeed .. What if we had a carrier group in the Atlantic right now [ to evacuate citizens at short notice of course !!
Dr Saab, wide bodied aircraft (B747s, A340s, etc) are better suited for this role, rather than aircraft carriers.
Aircraft carriers are also high value assets. Putting civilians aboard an aircraft carrier (you can't keep them on the deck for the duration of the trip) is not an ideal situation at all. Forget the logistics (food, boarding, etc) of it, heaven only how many Khalistani sympathizers could potentially be among the civilians that are being evacuated. The last thing you need is to comprise the safety & security of the vessel.
And if a vessel must be used, then a hospital ship or a troop carrying vessel would be better served.
drnayar wrote: ↑21 Sep 2023 23:39
Indeed .. What if we had a carrier group in the Atlantic right now [ to evacuate citizens at short notice of course !!
Dr Saab, wide bodied aircraft (B747s, A340s, etc) are better suited for this role, rather than aircraft carriers.
Aircraft carriers are also high value assets. Putting civilians aboard an aircraft carrier (you can't keep them on the deck for the duration of the trip) is not an ideal situation at all. Forget the logistics (food, boarding, etc) of it, heaven only how many Khalistani sympathizers could potentially be among the civilians that are being evacuated. The last thing you need is to comprise the safety & security of the vessel.
And if a vessel must be used, then a hospital ship or a troop carrying vessel would be better served.
you missed the point admiral. The shield needs a sword to be truly effective even in peace
drnayar wrote: ↑22 Sep 2023 00:16
you missed the point admiral. The shield needs a sword to be truly effective even in peace
I understood your point Dr Saab
Evacuation of Indian citizens (studying or visiting) - who are presently in Canada - will not result in their physical harm. We are blowing this diplomatic fracas with Canada, way out of proportion. An aircraft carrier is not going to serve any purpose, in any possible future evacuation from Canada.
Evacuation also has to be quick. Putting them on the high seas will only increase their risk.
I want to highlight some top level concerns in acquiring another Aircraft carrier for the Indian Navy. Indian Navy has very long experience in Aircraft carriers firstly from the British, then Russia's Vikramaditya, then the 1st indigenous Indian carrier. The carrier is really about Sea Dominance and projecting power elsewhere. Sea Denial is about marking an area as yours and denying any intrusion. Sea dominance requires a sea denial first and foremost. The supporting fleet of vessels required to field an Aircraft carrier is large since the carrier is subject to attacks. I don't think India is quite there in terms of Sea denial. Sea denial requires surface combat capability (frigates, destroyers, etc) and underwater combat (submarines) capabilities. Against a formidable enemy like China which has enormous quantity of assets, where would India be in acquiring yet another aircraft carrier when sea denial is suspect. China routinely sends its ship close to the Indian coast and in neighboring countries with impunity. Can an Indian aircraft carrier group work in the Champa Sea (south china sea) and gain sea dominance without persistent attacks on the Aircraft carrier group?
Indian Navy's first priority is very strong Sea denial capabilities. It submarine fleet needs larger numbers, P8 anti-submarine fleet should be larger, stealthy frigates and destroyers also need to be enhanced in terms of numbers. All of this requires concerted investment by GOI. Another aircraft carrier would empty the budget very quickly.
If India is thinking about retiring Vikramaditya soon, then another aircraft carrier group makes sense. There are many indigenous items that aircraft carriers can use, but we have imported engines, imported aircrafts, imported subsystem, etc. On aircraft front, India should hasten TEDBF timelines and retire the Mig-29 fleet as soon as possible. On engine front we still do not have a capable marine engine which can replace GE engine.
Indian Ocean Power Play: Why Indian Navy Needs A Third Aircraft Carrier
Indian Navy has sent a formal proposal to the Ministry of Defence to acquire a second indigenous aircraft carrier — a necessity at a time when China is expanding its naval fleet at breakneck speed https://www.defencenews.in/2023/09/indi ... t-carrier/
bala wrote: ↑22 Sep 2023 01:10 Can an Indian aircraft carrier group work in the Champa Sea (south china sea) and gain sea dominance without persistent attacks on the Aircraft carrier group?
This has happened with USN destroyers too when doing FONOPS in SCS and Taiwan straits. So to expect PLAN to go meek when operating in their neighbourhood is not the right place to begin, IMO. Honestly, i don't see PRC ever backing off in any standoff situation unless the other party provides a way where they can save face.
That being said, i agree with your point about investing in our sea denial capabilities more than our sea dominance ones with laser like focus on long endurance SSK or mid-sized SSN's. We need only 1 more carrier, to replace Vicky from fleet duties.
bala wrote: ↑22 Sep 2023 01:10 Can an Indian aircraft carrier group work in the Champa Sea (south china sea) and gain sea dominance without persistent attacks on the Aircraft carrier group?
This has happened with USN destroyers too when doing FONOPS in SCS and Taiwan straits. So to expect PLAN to go meek when operating in their neighbourhood is not the right place to begin, IMO. Honestly, i don't see PRC ever backing off in any standoff situation unless the other party provides a way where they can save face.
That being said, i agree with your point about investing in our sea denial capabilities more than our sea dominance ones with laser like focus on long endurance SSK or mid-sized SSN's. We need only 1 more carrier, to replace Vicky from fleet duties.
Q. Since 2014, China has launched more warships than the total number of ships in the navies of Germany, India, Spain, Taiwan and the UK. How does it alter the maritime power balance?
A. They are commissioning between 12 and 18 ships a year. In the past four-five years, they have commissioned 80 new ships and submarines. No navy has grown at this pace for more than a hundred years, not counting the two world wars. China’s economy is more than six times that of ours and their defence budget is more than five times that of ours; they are investing large sums in developing maritime capability. We can match what forces China can bring to bear in the IOR. But in the South China Sea, the dice is loaded in their favour.
^^^^ Highly unlikely - with our current capability - that we will send any carrier battle group into the South China Sea. And Admiral Lanba's words are still true today - China is still building her naval fleet at a rapid pace, while the Indian Navy has just submitted her proposal for IAC-2. We have a long way to go, before we can sail into China's backyard and throw our weight around.
See the map below of the IOR and then see the South China Sea. The SCS is space constrained, when compared to the IOR. Getting a real time location on an Indian CBG is a lot easier to do in the SCS than in the IOR.
Pratyush wrote: ↑27 Sep 2023 20:09
The geography of the south china sea is such. That PRC can dominate the region, even without a large aircraft carrier fleet.
ashthor wrote: ↑27 Sep 2023 21:12
Why are we sharing a wrong map of India? Kashmir is depicted wrong.
My apologies, but in a quick search of a map of the IOR...this is one that came up. I did not bother to see if the map of Kashmir was correct. I have now changed the map. Thank You.
Pratyush wrote: ↑27 Sep 2023 20:09
The geography of the south china sea is such. That PRC can dominate the region, even without a large aircraft carrier fleet.
But it can easily be bottled up there too
the carrier fleet is for IOR and pacific., i expect the Chinese to field at least 3 carrier groups in the near term ~ 2030 ., two would be based in IOR ..Djibouti and Gwadar would be likely staging areas. The carrier groups would aim to interdict the possible choke points to the east and west
On PRC and Champa Sea: the Aircraft carrier groups of China haven't gone out on patrol very far from China's coastal region and with heavy protection. The independent Sea dominance role is lacking for China unlike for the US. An armada of other navys like Japan, South Korea, Vietnam and Philippines (include India) would stump China in the Champa Sea.
I pointed out the fact that India Navy sea dominance role cannot be projected independently in Champa Sea. Admiral Sunil Lanba points out that India can match China in IOR. The projection of power, requires sea denial and this is an area that the Indian Navy has to work towards.
bala wrote: ↑27 Sep 2023 23:05
On PRC and Champa Sea: the Aircraft carrier groups of China haven't gone out on patrol very far from China's coastal region and with heavy protection. The independent Sea dominance role is lacking for China unlike for the US. An armada of other navys like Japan, South Korea, Vietnam and Philippines (include India) would stump China in the Champa Sea.
I pointed out the fact that India Navy sea dominance role cannot be projected independently in Champa Sea. Admiral Sunil Lanba points out that India can match China in IOR. The projection of power, requires sea denial and this is an area that the Indian Navy has to work towards.
We have to operate on the premise that India will be on her own in any future conflict. Relying on any country is a fool's errand. All this talk of Quad, etc makes for nice diplomatic photo ops. However, with the recent fracas over India-Canada...we are reminded once again that India cannot rely on allies to do her fighting. That is entirely on India alone.
“Strength respects strength and not weakness. Strength means military might and economic prosperity.” - Dr Abdul Kalam
Countries will be eager to partner with you if you have the military capability and the economic wherewithal to fund a conflict. A role of Sea Dominance can only come from having your own MIC. That is what makes a country strong. We are still a long way off that mark.
Rakesh bhai, we are saying the same thing. I started of with the need (justification) to have IAC-2 and pointed out sea denial capability being more paramount for the Indian Navy. Sea Force projection with Aircraft carrier group as an example was Champa Sea and we see why that cannot work against China. The serious lack of sea denial is the issue. The only outside chance for that to work is to have other navies supporting India in the role of sea denial. Indian MIC has to work 24x7x365 to get Indian sea denial anywhere.
The discussion is veering dangerously towards the Indian need to build large and very capable carrier air wing. Even if we are going to operate only in the Indian Ocean, as a defensive fleet within the Indian Ocean.
The next few points are based on following assumptions;
1) PLAAF is able to sustain themselves over Tibet against Indian Air force. In a way which enables them to dominate the battlefield.
2) PLAN has built a fleet of 6 to 8 aircraft carriers, based on Fujian design.
PRC at that point will be able to operate in the Indian Ocean with impunity. Because the Indian Navy will not have the ability to successfully challenge PLAN. The IAF will be stuck up north dealing with the PLAF.
People can say that AA/AD capacity being developed by India can prevent PLAN from dominating Indian Ocean.
The availability of carrier based AEW and modern AESA type radars on surface ships. Coupled with SM 3 / SM6 equivalent for PLAN. They can detect and track incoming Indian weapons, upto 1100 kms from aircraft carrier. Using fairly simple tactics.
Not saying that PLAN can't be defeated. But they will have to be caught in a multi vector, multi domain attack.
1) The IAC2 would be a follow-on order to the existing one. All the industrial partners would be the same but with greater indigenous content.
2) The Navy has already tabled the report to MoD and the first presentation has been done.
3) EMALS for the third IAC is under serious exploration at Warship Design Bureau.
4) General Atomics EMALS is coming out to be 20% of the cost of the aircraft carrier. This makes it not feasible for the Indian Navy.
5) Hence, EMALS for IAC3 is going to be an indigenous one with core technologies being developed in India.
6) Possibility of General Atomics involved in a minority JV with an Indian company (Bharat Forge) is there.
Pratyush wrote: ↑28 Sep 2023 07:31
1) The discussion is veering dangerously towards the Indian need to build large and very capable carrier air wing. ...2) have to be caught in a multi vector, multi domain attack.
The people who're discussing point number 1, are conveniently forgetting point number 2.
Even the mighty USN with its 100,000 ton, 100 aircraft, aircraft carriers can project zilch power near the Taiwan straits / SCS if it weren't for the numerous airbases / bases they have in Japan, South Korea, Australia which are fully stocked with fighters, bombers, missiles and maybe a few nukes.
So people need to kindly not view CBGs as Rambos who'll barge in with guns blazing and win the war. They're just a part of the bigger picture. We need aircraft carriers yes, but they need to be used in conjunction with airbases in Andaman and Lakshadweep packed with brahmos armed Sukhois, Agni & hypersonic missiles, SMART missiles. And similarly we need our assets in bases in any or all friendly ASEAN countries. THAT is what will help our aircraft carriers project power at long ranges.
sajaym wrote: ↑28 Sep 2023 23:09
The people who're discussing point number 1, are conveniently forgetting point number 2.
It is convenient to forget, because it is not true
As of today ---> two aircraft carriers (the Liaoning, Type 001 and the Shandong, Type 002) are in operational service with the PLAN. The Fujian, Type 003 is being fitted out and AFAIK, the keel of the Type 004 has not even been laid yet. The PLAN has significantly scaled back her aircraft carrier program. The earlier plan was to build around 8 vessels, then scaled back to six and now hovers around 4 to 5 aircraft carriers. The ChiComs are soon realizing how horrendously expensive these CBGs are.
The Type 004 is supposed to be nuclear powered and have a displacement in excess of 100,000 tons. Lets see if that actually happens.
i think the 10-15000 crores on the IAC is well spend considering almost all that contributes to building the economy , mil ind capacity and enhances the tech capability of the country
Rakesh wrote: ↑28 Sep 2023 23:19
As of today ---> two aircraft carriers (the Liaoning, Type 001 and the Shandong, Type 002) are in operational service with the PLAN. The Fujian, Type 003 is being fitted out and AFAIK, the keel of the Type 004 has not even been laid yet. The PLAN has significantly scaled back her aircraft carrier program. The earlier plan was to build around 8 vessels, then scaled back to six and now hovers around 4 to 5 aircraft carriers. The ChiComs are soon realizing how horrendously expensive these CBGs are.
The two chinese aircraft carriers are not truly operational in the sense of other nations like the US. They are yet to go on independent forays into the open seas, they are currently within sight of mainland china. There are reports of cracked tops in the aircraft carrier. They don't have adequate number of pilots who can operate the aircrafts in tossing seas. Many advisor pilots from UK, etc are being hired to train the chinese pilots. The aircrafts themselves have high maintenance and poor engine life. The Chinese are bluffing the rest of the world with their aircraft carrier display.
Both Shandong and Lioning have made training deployments far beyond the first island chain.
Including one where they have excercise against Guam.
WRT, pilots to populate the airgroup. Those are just growing pains. 10 years ago they didn't have any carrier. Today they have 2 operational. With a 3rd on the way.
Deck cracking, if the PLAN in this incompetent, then we have nothing to worry.
Pratyush wrote: ↑01 Oct 2023 08:24
If India is going to build just 3 aircraft carrier. Then the r&d expenses for no 3 indigenous aircraft carrier might not be worthwhile.
As just 2 EMALS will not be enough to recuperate the R&D expenses.
IAC3 will likely just be the first of a few with EMALS. And IN will need to support each of these for about 40-50 years
The Navy’s proposal for a repeat order of a Vikrant-like aircraft carrier, estimated to cost approximately ₹40,000 crore....
Both the proposals, for a second Indigenous Aircraft Carrier (IAC)-II and 97 LCA-MK1A, have already been cleared by the Defence Procurement Board (DPB) and are expected to be taken up by the DAC at its next meeting, two sources, with knowledge of the matter, independently confirmed to The Hindu.
The proposal for IAC-II was cleared by the DPB in mid-September, one of the highly-placed sources said. The IAC-II displacing 45,000 tonnes will see some modifications and newer technologies incorporated in the original design of the country’s first Indigenous Aircraft Carrier (IAC) INS Vikrant, which was commissioned in September 2022 and will also be manufactured by Cochin Shipyard Limited (CSL).
hgupta wrote: ↑02 Dec 2023 11:07
They should have done this five years ago and we should order two more not one. Vikramaditya is becoming a harbor queen.
Bingo! But the Navy hummed and hawed on a follow on Vikrant Class for years! Nothing short of a 65,000 ton super carrier with EMALS, nuclear power and 57 MRCBF was acceptable.
Now they are doing the very same thing that many told them to in the past. See this article from Saurav Jha from 2018.
Indeed, a case could be made for building a more modest INS Vishal, which would basically be an enlarged INS Vikrant and would host a group of indigenous LCA-Navy Mark 2 fighters that are currently under development. To be sure, this option might not easily find favour with the Navy, which obviously does not want the Vishal to be just a modest step-up from its current carriers.
Nonetheless, a more limited INS Vishal can be built relatively quickly and economically by CSL, which is currently setting up a new dry dock suitable for building super-carriers. For now, the Navy can consider setting up a ‘joint project body’ with the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) and the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) on the lines of ‘Project Akanksha’, which oversees India’s nuclear submarine projects, to commence construction on a large nuclear-powered aircraft carrier in the late 2020s. By that time, New Delhi will likely be able to afford it.
It will be a duplicate of INS Vikrant with lessons learned.
IN Needs it fast.
It won't be a showboat with EMALS etc.
Its needed to defend the seas and not power projection.
Stop thinking colonial bull shit.
