Indigenous Aircraft Carrier (IAC 2): News & Discussion

[Rakesh]

https://x.com/Defencecore/status/203169 ... 82848?s=20 ---> Indian Navy’s future CATOBAR aircraft carrier. Hope we see a 45,000 - 65,000 ton carrier with CATOBAR facility, operating with TEDBF.

[Rakesh]

With all the brouhaha going on between the US and Iran and the "reported" damage occurring to the two US carriers (Abraham Lincoln and Gerald Ford), expect a rethink on the whole super carrier program for the Indian Navy. The Ford is out of service and the excuse that a laundry fire has put the ship out of commission, for the next 14 months apparently. And they expect people to buy that excuse

These massive floating airfields are turning out to be more of a headache to defend, against supersonic & hypersonic missiles. IAC-2 will still come though, but more as an improved Vikrant Class vessel than anything else. There will be a greater push towards vessels that pack a bigger punch (i.e. destroyers with large VLS cells like Project 18) and the nearly impossible to detect sub-surface vessels like the upcoming Project 77 SSN.

Expect greater funding being diverted to a larger/growing fleet of SSNs. That will be the game changer for the Indian Navy for the foreseeable future. IAC-2 itself will likely get delayed due to the diversion of funds.

P.S. This diversion will have a ripple effect on the 5th gen TEDBF program and the follow-on order of 31 Rafale Ms.

[SRajesh]

^^Amen to that Admiral Sir
We need more SSN and conventional subs, Destroyers and Frigates.
Not a large flattop but medium sized upgraded Vik class!!
More important we need to build up land based capabilities at atleast three points of IOC two Entry points East and West and south one ( whats happened to that talk with Marutius about the base in on of their islands??)
More Poseidons (yes Unkil will squeeze every penny but we need long range Recon and Sub hunters).
A question : can Missile Frigates/Destroyers can pack anti BMD to tackle ship killers/carrier killers??

[uddu]

^^Amen to that Admiral Sir
We need more SSN and conventional subs, Destroyers and Frigates.
Not a large flattop but medium sized upgraded Vik class!!
More important we need to build up land based capabilities at atleast three points of IOC two Entry points East and West and south one ( whats happened to that talk with Marutius about the base in on of their islands??)
More Poseidons (yes Unkil will squeeze every penny but we need long range Recon and Sub hunters).
A question : can Missile Frigates/Destroyers can pack anti BMD to tackle ship killers/carrier killers??

Our Aircraft Carrier capability is very limited. First IAC took from 2009 keel laying to to commissioning in 2022. 13 years. Work on the Second IAC will take 11 years minimum for it to get commissioned. Add to that Ministerial or Bureaucratic delays. Already 4 years has gone since INS Vikrant commissioning. So we could expect the next IAC-2 to come by 2039 or even 2040. INS Vikramaditya will be 50 year old by that time and need to be decommissioned.

Since they are said to be planning for a 65,000 AC, hope that they place order for 2 instead of 1. So we could have 3 aircraft carriers by 2045 or so.

Since the next AC is about to come by 2039 or 40, you have ample time of 14 years to make TEDBF or work on stealth NAMCA or AMCA-N variant of AMCA or both.

The discussion was with Seychelles, which most probably some vested foreign interests rallied the opposition to block it.

Land based infrastructure are very vulnerable as seen by the Missile launch on Chagos Island by Iran. More number of Anti-ballistic missile defence can be fielded to protect the island. While AC group moves with Cruisers, Destroyers carrying Anti-Ballistic missiles as well. When it comes to movement, AC get the advantage. When it comes to having the kind of Anti-Ballistic missiles that can be fielded, probably land based defense has better chance, through the attack will be relentless as well since Island cannot be moved. Advantage of land based being the ability to fly larger Maritime Patrol aircrafts like the P8I. Also it's not necessary that the nation will allow military launch during war time. Just as we saw the Arab countries denying the U.S space to launch attacks on Iran before the war started.

So the debate on whether AC is needed or Submarines are needed will go on. In reality all are needed. What need to be done is cut down on Bureaucratic delays and corruption and the unending quench for imports.

There need to be change in the Defense Minister. RS is an OK minister. Either choose V.K Singh who has worked with the PM or wait till the Kerala elections are over. If Rajeev Chandrasekhar loses in Nemom, give him the ministries of Ashwini Vaishnav and move AV to be the new DM. We will probably have a MP in him. The former Airforce chief, R.K.S Bhadauria is the best bet with overall experience and technical knowledge as a DM, but doubt Shri Modi will choose him. A tech savvy minister should be the DM from now on, especially when the rapid changes in technology is changing the battlefield on a monthly basis.

[Cybaru]

Just build one that has a big enough lift, whatever size 50K, 60k, who cares.

Fortify A&D and Lakshadweep islands - those are real carriers. Get landing/refueling rights on the far side of Sri lanka for P8I to land refuel and rehit even further out.. Invest in far more satellites over long range drones. Invest in some long range drones. We should we set to run around in Indian ocean.

[uddu]

You guys get into the This or That argument, which is really absurd. Carriers are Carriers and Islands are Islands. One cannot replace the other. Nor can Submarines replace the AC's nor can AC's replace the submarines. All has advantages and disadvantages. Having one will not make you win across the board of threats. Each has it's own advantages and disadvantages. So this argument that goes on being Submarine Vs AC's. AC's vs Islands etc are really absurd. Everything has it's own place in a Navy. What can be argued is the numbers. Should we have a 10 AC Navy or 3 is enough or 5 is needed are for debate. Anything else is time wasted. There was a video in which the current Vice Admiral clearly stated the same that every asset has its role to play and he mentioned about a balanced Navy.

[Rakesh]

You guys get into the This or That argument, which is really absurd. Carriers are Carriers and Islands are Islands. One cannot replace the other. Nor can Submarines replace the AC's nor can AC's replace the submarines. All has advantages and disadvantages. Having one will not make you win across the board of threats. Each has it's own advantages and disadvantages. So this argument that goes on being Submarine Vs AC's. AC's vs Islands etc are really absurd. Everything has it's own place in a Navy. What can be argued is the numbers. Should we have a 10 AC Navy or 3 is enough or 5 is needed are for debate. Anything else is time wasted. There was a video in which the current Vice Admiral clearly stated the same that every asset has its role to play and he mentioned about a balanced Navy.

What is astounding is that you are completely oblivious to the happenings in the aircraft carrier versus submarine debate that has happened in the last 2.5 decades (and even prior). The tussle over funding - well documented - between aircraft carriers versus submarines is known to all. And here you are giving gyaan, after Ramayana and Mahabharata is over

Go look up the tussle between Admiral Karambir Singh (former CNS) and the late General Bipin Rawat (as CDS) over this very issue. Go look up the statements from Admiral Sunil Lanba (former CNS) over the Navy's 65K super carrier concept and the MRCBF air wing that was to accompany it. Look up the challenges the Indian Navy faced with CATOBAR and propulsion of this very 65K aircraft carrier.

Please stop giving theory about aircraft carriers and submarines and how every asset has a role to play. It may sound smart to you, but that is basic theory that is known to all. Do some basic research first i.e. funding access, find out build times of these platforms (look up their predecessors to start off with), assets aboard these platforms, capability required, etc. Stop parroting what you listen on YT videos and then repeat it on BRF.

Every asset has a role to play, balanced Navy, Islands vs Aircraft Carriers, etc are "nice" sound bytes to fill up a post. But they are meaningless without any substantiative study behind them and your post amply proves that.

[uddu]

...

Rakesh ji, your choice and passion for submarines is well known. Even the current attack on Iran, can U.S attack Iran with just submarines? How successful will they be?

And why was INS Vikrant deployed against Pakistan during Op Sindoor? Must have been just the Subs. I will only say this. This debate is going on for such a long time and each side do have their preferences. But for me, from my observations, would say that both do have their own roles to play.

[Rakesh]

Rakesh ji, your choice and passion for submarines is well known. Even the current attack on Iran, can U.S attack Iran with just submarines? How successful will they be?

And why was INS Vikrant deployed against Pakistan during Op Sindoor? Must have been just the Subs. I will only say this. This debate is going on for such a long time and each side do have their preferences. But for me, from my observations, would say that both do have their own roles to play.

How do you know subs were not deployed during Op Sindoor? This is primarily the issue with you. Submarines are called Silent Service for a reason!

INS Vikrant was deployed, along with its carrier battle group. Have you looked up what constitutes an Indian Navy CBG?

How successful was the USS Gerald R Ford, that the US Navy had to pull it out of the theatre of conflict and then bring in the USS George HW Bush as its replacement? Even the USS Abraham Lincoln is operating out of the vicinity of Iran's missiles.

Debate has gone on on aircraft carriers vs submarines and will continue to go on for eons. That is the not the issue in India's context. This debate can be had in the US, which has a comfortable quantity of both. In India, we have an insufficient quantity of either and to complicate matters, there is a severe funding issue that is borne out of a lack of vision.

[uddu]

How do you know subs were not deployed during Op Sindoor? This is primarily the issue with you. Submarines are called Silent Service for a reason!

INS Vikrant was deployed, along with its carrier battle group. Have you looked up what constitutes an Indian Navy CBG?

How successful was the USS Gerald R Ford, that the US Navy had to pull it out of the theatre of conflict and then bring in the USS George HW Bush as its replacement? Even the USS Abraham Lincoln is operating out of the vicinity of Iran's missiles.

Debate has gone on on aircraft carriers vs submarines and will continue to go on for eons. That is the not the issue in India's context. This debate can be had in the US, which has a comfortable quantity of both. In India, we have an insufficient quantity of either and to complicate matters, there is a severe funding issue that is borne out of a lack of vision.

Rakeshji, you assume it's this or that. Please read carefully, what I wrote. I said why was INS Vikrant deployed if it's useless? Never stated subs were not deployed. Every IN operations of such nature will have subs and some reports also mention that the subs were hunting Pak subs. So in our case as well. Both INS Vikrant ans Subs were deployed. Meaning both are useful and needed.
Same with the U.S they had deployed their carriers and also their subs. No one is stating that any asset, be it submarine or AC is invulnerable. At times will get hit and even sunk. They also do their task.

[Rakesh]

Rakeshji, you assume it's this or that. Please read carefully, what I wrote. I said why was INS Vikrant deployed if it's useless? Never stated subs were not deployed. Every IN operations of such nature will have subs and some reports also mention that the subs were hunting Pak subs. So in our case as well. Both INS Vikrant ans Subs were deployed. Meaning both are useful and needed.
Same with the U.S they had deployed their carriers and also their subs. No one is stating that any asset, be it submarine or AC is invulnerable. At times will get hit and even sunk. They also do their task.

I did not say INS Vikrant was useless. That is your assumption. That is not my issue.

I will ask again ---> What constitutes an Indian Navy CBG?

[uddu]

Rakeshji, you assume it's this or that. Please read carefully, what I wrote. I said why was INS Vikrant deployed if it's useless? Never stated subs were not deployed. Every IN operations of such nature will have subs and some reports also mention that the subs were hunting Pak subs. So in our case as well. Both INS Vikrant ans Subs were deployed. Meaning both are useful and needed.
Same with the U.S they had deployed their carriers and also their subs. No one is stating that any asset, be it submarine or AC is invulnerable. At times will get hit and even sunk. They also do their task.

I did not say INS Vikrant was useless. That is your assumption. That is not my issue.

I will ask again ---> What constitutes an Indian Navy CBG?

So what is that we are debating. Both are useful and needed.

Sirji, from my reading it comes with at least 1 submarine, Destroyers and frigates. Once again both are needed.

[Rakesh]

So what is that we are debating. Both are useful and needed.

Sirji, from my reading it comes with at least 1 submarine, Destroyers and frigates. Once again both are needed.

I stated this earlier, but you conveniently ignored it

Debate has gone on on aircraft carriers vs submarines and will continue to go on for eons. That is the not the issue in India's context. This debate can be had in the US, which has a comfortable quantity of both. In India, we have an insufficient quantity of either and to complicate matters, there is a severe funding issue that is borne out of a lack of vision.

In the Indian context, the Navy has been forced to choose between one versus the other and is still stuck in this quagmire.

And also my earlier post....

With all the brouhaha going on between the US and Iran and the "reported" damage occurring to the two US carriers (Abraham Lincoln and Gerald Ford), expect a rethink on the whole super carrier program for the Indian Navy. The Ford is out of service and the excuse that a laundry fire has put the ship out of commission, for the next 14 months apparently. And they expect people to buy that excuse

These massive floating airfields are turning out to be more of a headache to defend, against supersonic & hypersonic missiles. IAC-2 will still come though, but more as an improved Vikrant Class vessel than anything else. There will be a greater push towards vessels that pack a bigger punch (i.e. destroyers with large VLS cells like Project 18) and the nearly impossible to detect sub-surface vessels like the upcoming Project 77 SSN.

Expect greater funding being diverted to a larger/growing fleet of SSNs. That will be the game changer for the Indian Navy for the foreseeable future. IAC-2 itself will likely get delayed due to the diversion of funds.

P.S. This diversion will have a ripple effect on the 5th gen TEDBF program and the follow-on order of 31 Rafale Ms.

[uddu]

So what is that we are debating. Both are useful and needed.

Sirji, from my reading it comes with at least 1 submarine, Destroyers and frigates. Once again both are needed.

I stated this earlier, but you conveniently ignored it

Debate has gone on on aircraft carriers vs submarines and will continue to go on for eons. That is the not the issue in India's context. This debate can be had in the US, which has a comfortable quantity of both. In India, we have an insufficient quantity of either and to complicate matters, there is a severe funding issue that is borne out of a lack of vision.

In the Indian context, the Navy has been forced to choose between one versus the other and is still stuck in this quagmire.

Sirji, I understand this is a global debate and will keep going. But also please forgive, I showed my frustration of this debate that I am seeing and watching for decades probably.

[drnayar]

India’s geography—specifically the Andaman and Nicobar Islands in the east and the Lakshadweep in the west—acts as a natural fortress. When these outposts are heavily militarised with long-range sensors, runways, and missile batteries, they allow India to dominate the "choke points" (like the Strait of Malacca) without the massive overhead and vulnerability of a floating carrier.

Fixed vs. Mobile: An island can’t move. If a conflict arises in the South China Sea or the Horn of Africa, "unsinkable carriers" are useless. A CBG provides expeditionary capability—the ability to take Indian air power to the enemy's doorstep.

Logistics Gap: To be truly "Blue Water," the Navy needs more than just carriers; it needs a massive fleet of replenishment oilers and nuclear-powered submarines (SSNs) to sustain operations thousands of miles from home for months.

Power Projection: Currently, the Indian Navy is a formidable regional power, but moving from "Green Water" (coastal) to true "Blue Water" (global) requires a third carrier and a much larger surface fleet to ensure at least two strike groups are operational at any given time.

In short, the islands secure the Indian Ocean Region (IOR), but the carriers are what make India a global player.

[drnayar]

Somehow the debate Carriers vs submarines have always been looked at from the angle of survivability .

A carrier doesn't just float; it’s the center of a Carrier Strike Group (CSG). you have to peel back a dozen layers of protection before you even touch the hull.

No other system can park 3 acres [ or so in case of the the Vikrant] of sovereign territory—and an air force—off a coastline indefinitely. It’s a mobile psychological and kinetic tool that a fixed airbase or a long-range missile can't replicate.

While the "death of the carrier" or the "end of the tank" are popular headlines, the reality is more about integrated ecosystems than individual platforms

The debate is actually of shifting from "Is it obsolete?" to "How do we protect it?" The answer usually involves adding more autonomous sensors and electronic warfare suites to the mix.

[drnayar]

In short India needs Aircraft Carriers. Period. At least three CBGs . No way around this. The question is how well to fund it given the long lead times.

Five CBGs gives India a true blue water Navy with at least one group in an expeditionary role at any given time.

[drnayar]

Rakeshji, you assume it's this or that. Please read carefully, what I wrote. I said why was INS Vikrant deployed if it's useless? Never stated subs were not deployed. Every IN operations of such nature will have subs and some reports also mention that the subs were hunting Pak subs. So in our case as well. Both INS Vikrant ans Subs were deployed. Meaning both are useful and needed.
Same with the U.S they had deployed their carriers and also their subs. No one is stating that any asset, be it submarine or AC is invulnerable. At times will get hit and even sunk. They also do their task.

I did not say INS Vikrant was useless. That is your assumption. That is not my issue.

I will ask again ---> What constitutes an Indian Navy CBG?

Subsurface USN:1–2 nuclear attack submarines (SSN) IN: 1 SSN (Ideally) 1 Conventional Submarine (SSK)

[uddu]

Power Projection: Currently, the Indian Navy is a formidable regional power, but moving from "Green Water" (coastal) to true "Blue Water" (global) requires a third carrier and a much larger surface fleet to ensure at least two strike groups are operational at any given time.

Our's is a blue water Navy, This again is a whole new debate on what can be called as Blue water force. Usually in the typical debates the likes of U.K, France, along with the U.S are treated as Blue water force. While India is treated as having some capability. In reality U.K is in such bad shape that they are renting German warship to deploy to West Asia.
I will list, U.S, Russia, India, China, Japan, SK, France having blue water capabilities. While U.S, Russia, India, France as the most formidable navies. U.S can be listed as a level above. Chinese for some reason as seen during Op Sindoor and the West Asia crisis, their weaponry are very doubtful to function. Their Anti-Aircraft missiles. More like sitting ducks, though their Anti-Ship capability may be functioning decent. Not yet demonstrated in a conflict. While our Brahmos has shown hitting Bulls eye deep inside Atami takit Pakistan. Japan and SK having good ships though with subsonic missiles that are not as dangerous as one would expect them to be.

[uddu]

A carrier doesn't just float; it’s the center of a Carrier Strike Group (CSG). you have to peel back a dozen layers of protection before you even touch the hull.

This is over simplification. It all depends on what gets through and how formidable is the ability to shoot down the missiles coming its way. What type of missile and whether it hits the AC rather than the other ships.

[Rakesh]

Just build one that has a big enough lift, whatever size 50K, 60k, who cares.

Fortify A&D and Lakshadweep islands - those are real carriers. Get landing/refueling rights on the far side of Sri lanka for P8I to land refuel and rehit even further out.. Invest in far more satellites over long range drones. Invest in some long range drones. We should we set to run around in Indian ocean.

https://x.com/_TheUnknown007_/status/20 ... 20683?s=20 ---> AFTER ARIDHAMAN, WHAT NEXT.

Great, Finally the third leg of India's nuclear triad is complete. Because before Aridhaman our sea based deterrent was too limited in numbers to be considered truly credible.

But we still need to work on strengthening the number of conventional submarines we have. We have wasted three decades on this since the "30 Year Submarine Building Plan" got CCS clearance in July 1999, under which we had to induct 24 conventional submarines in three phases, Project 75, Project 75I and Project 76, with completion intended by 2030. But we are still on Phase 2. We need to pace this up, otherwise blocking the Strait of Malacca is not possible.

We also need to pace up the Andaman and Nicobar Command infrastructure buildup because we are already two decades behind the strategic necessity of having adequate infrastructure at the Andaman and Nicobar Command.

We should pause the third aircraft carrier project because the aircraft carrier era is over, and the latest war in Iran has proved it again. Our two aircraft carriers are enough if we keep their availability rate high. We do not need an aircraft carrier for the Pakistan front. Their Navy is already fighting for survival within Pakistan, because they only get whatever remains of the budget after the corruption and needs of the Pakistan Army and Air Force are fulfilled. We need to redirect the budget of the third aircraft carrier toward building more submarines, other naval vessels, or toward building up the Andaman and Nicobar Command infrastructure.

[Cybaru]

You guys get into the This or That argument, which is really absurd. Carriers are Carriers and Islands are Islands. One cannot replace the other. Nor can Submarines replace the AC's nor can AC's replace the submarines. All has advantages and disadvantages. Having one will not make you win across the board of threats. Each has it's own advantages and disadvantages. So this argument that goes on being Submarine Vs AC's. AC's vs Islands etc are really absurd. Everything has it's own place in a Navy. What can be argued is the numbers. Should we have a 10 AC Navy or 3 is enough or 5 is needed are for debate. Anything else is time wasted. There was a video in which the current Vice Admiral clearly stated the same that every asset has its role to play and he mentioned about a balanced Navy.

I presume you responded to my note. That is not what my note says. Perhaps you are arguing with yourself?

[Cybaru]

Just build one that has a big enough lift, whatever size 50K, 60k, who cares.

Fortify A&D and Lakshadweep islands - those are real carriers. Get landing/refueling rights on the far side of Sri lanka for P8I to land refuel and rehit even further out.. Invest in far more satellites over long range drones. Invest in some long range drones. We should we set to run around in Indian ocean.

https://x.com/_TheUnknown007_/status/20 ... 20683?s=20 ---> AFTER ARIDHAMAN, WHAT NEXT.
....
We should pause the third aircraft carrier project because the aircraft carrier era is over, and the latest war in Iran has proved it again. Our two aircraft carriers are enough if we keep their availability rate high. We do not need an aircraft carrier for the Pakistan front. Their Navy is already fighting for survival within Pakistan, because they only get whatever remains of the budget after the corruption and needs of the Pakistan Army and Air Force are fulfilled. We need to redirect the budget of the third aircraft carrier toward building more submarines, other naval vessels, or toward building up the Andaman and Nicobar Command infrastructure.

AYE! right on... Both ukraine and Iran have taken on larger forces with far less resources, jugaaad and cunningness. Lots of lessons to learn.

[bala]

I have a different take on the Aircraft carrier (AC). If India aspires to be #3 economically, then it has to match US, Russia and China in strength otherwise the bullying will happen. Take the India ocean area, 3 AC are required to patrol the areas and these have to be available all the time - so we are looking at 5 ACs at least. If you need to project capability in the South Asia seas we need another. The same goes for submarines, the 3 nuke subs are not enough we need 10+ just to control areas around India. Conventional ships - destroyers, frigates, corvettes and anti sub aircrafts are all needed in larger numbers. Andaman & Nicobar is a strategic asset and must be developed to the tilt. What this implies is that acquisition budget for Navy needs to be boosted 5x to 10x over time. Build up is required and planning starts now. And the menace of drones etc has to be addressed in some manner.

[uddu]

I have a different take on the Aircraft carrier (AC). If India aspires to be #3 economically, then it has to match US, Russia and China in strength otherwise the bullying will happen. Take the India ocean area, 3 AC are required to patrol the areas and these have to be available all the time - so we are looking at 5 ACs at least. If you need to project capability in the South Asia seas we need another. The same goes for submarines, the 3 nuke subs are not enough we need 10+ just to control areas around India. Conventional ships - destroyers, frigates, corvettes and anti sub aircrafts are all needed in larger numbers. Andaman & Nicobar is a strategic asset and must be developed to the tilt. What this implies is that acquisition budget for Navy needs to be boosted 5x to 10x over time. Build up is required and planning starts now. And the menace of drones etc has to be addressed in some manner.

Perfect. The Navy's funding need to increase. Usually, the Navy is treated as a third service and if money is available it's provided to the Navy. Being an Atmanirbhar Navy, the Navy can do a lot more than what the IA and IAF can do. So the top priority must change to the Navy. Navy will make the nation a powerful Superpower. The funding priority need the change to IN being on top.

[Manish_Sharma]

With all the brouhaha going on between the US and Iran and the "reported" damage occurring to the two US carriers (Abraham Lincoln and Gerald Ford), expect a rethink on the whole super carrier program for the Indian Navy. The Ford is out of service and the excuse that a laundry fire has put the ship out of commission, for the next 14 months apparently. And they expect people to buy that excuse

These massive floating airfields are turning out to be more of a headache to defend, against supersonic & hypersonic missiles....

Years ago, more than a decade ago there was a debate between poster &war scenario writer Shankar (who used to be called Shankarosky) and Philip on:
Aircraft carrier vs fighter jets+vs combo refuellers(small c130 based)team used to do the same job as Aircraft carrier to defend our oceans

When Rahul M started a thread on Ghatak shaped Unmanned refuellers, I had thought of above idea; instead just use Stealthy bat shaped unmanned refueller instead of c130/c390 based refuellers & then fighter of the choice mig29k/Tejas/Rafale teamed with these to do the job

Usa is just exception as world bully that has to go 10s of thousands of miles to invade, no other nation has resources or inclination to do it.

From east coast of Africa to west coasts of Indonesia we will ever send aircraft carrier to fight, nothing further.

So why not do it with unmanned refuellers+Marine Netras+fighters (all taking off from Naval bases)

Aircraft carriers ended the Age of Battleships

Now drones & missiles have ended aircraft carriers.

[ashthor]

An aircraft carrier can stay say 500kms from an enemy's coast for a few months at a time. Think of the resources we need to do it "with unmanned refuellers+Marine Netras+fighters (all taking off from Naval bases)". Tomorrow if the enemy is 2000kms or more from the our bases, then what will be we do?

[Manish_Sharma]

An aircraft carrier can stay say 500kms from an enemy's coast for a few months at a time. Think of the resources we need to do it "with unmanned refuellers+Marine Netras+fighters (all taking off from Naval bases)". Tomorrow if the enemy is 2000kms or more from the our bases, then what will be we do?

But Ford & Lincoln couldn't... they had limp away after:

"...our carrier was attacked from 17 angles... our sailors our officers had to run here & there to save their lives..." emperor TACO Trumpp

& so many replenishment ships will be needed & no aircraft carrier carry so many SAM Anti air Guns to ward of cheap drones + missiles + Seadrones , even Destroyers the part of CBG would run out of them

[ashthor]

An aircraft carrier can stay say 500kms from an enemy's coast for a few months at a time. Think of the resources we need to do it "with unmanned refuellers+Marine Netras+fighters (all taking off from Naval bases)". Tomorrow if the enemy is 2000kms or more from the our bases, then what will be we do?

But Ford & Lincoln couldn't... they had limp away after:

"...our carrier was attacked from 17 angles... our sailors our officers had to run here & there to save their lives..." emperor TACO Trumpp

& so many replenishment ships will be needed & no aircraft carrier carry so many SAM Anti air Guns to ward of cheap drones + missiles + Seadrones , ever Destroyers would run out of them

17 angles and it was safe and saved by the other ships of the carrier group.

If SAM and replenishment gets over then it withdraws and a second one takes it place.

It cant be this or that......there are a lot of greys. We do need the carriers and we also need more
refuellers, bombers and Netras. No doubt about that.

[ashthor]

But Ford & Lincoln couldn't... they had limp away after:

"...our carrier was attacked from 17 angles... our sailors our officers had to run here & there to save their lives..." emperor TACO Trumpp

& so many replenishment ships will be needed & no aircraft carrier carry so many SAM Anti air Guns to ward of cheap drones + missiles + Seadrones , ever Destroyers would run out of them

17 angles and it was safe and saved by the other ships of the carrier group. And also think about
the amount of sorties from the carries to Iran. Think of them not as an carrier but an airfield.

If SAM and replenishment gets over then it withdraws and a second one takes it place.

It cant be this or that......there are a lot of greys. We do need the carriers and we also need more
refuellers, bombers and Netras. No doubt about that.

[Manish_Sharma]

But Ford & Lincoln couldn't... they had limp away after:

"...our carrier was attacked from 17 angles... our sailors our officers had to run here & there to save their lives..." emperor TACO Trumpp

& so many replenishment ships will be needed & no aircraft carrier carry so many SAM Anti air Guns to ward of cheap drones + missiles + Seadrones , ever Destroyers would run out of them

17 angles and it was safe and saved by the other ships of the carrier group.

If SAM and replenishment gets over then it withdraws and a second one takes it place.

It cant be this or that......there are a lot of greys. We do need the carriers and we also need more
refuellers, bombers and Netras. No doubt about that.

But so much risk... & if adversary has missile like we have |STAR =Missile+Torpedo| then game over as this missiles will drop the Torpedo much before SAM Defence & then Torpedo hits Destroyers & Carrier

Carrier is a liability, scenario:

China sends cbg against some country & Japan or usa without declaring war send super-silent Soryu or Seawolf & it hits Carrier with Torpedo & slink away, while credit is given for the hits to the country China is attacking then China can't do anything despite knowing as they have no proof

While |Exclusively Airborne Battlegroup with Ghatak refuellers- Netras-fighters even P8i | can go & do job in hours & come back , since one saves money on carrier & it's paraphernalia then the fighter jets & air paraphernalia can be increased multifold..

If ship has piddly 36 fighters, one can send 90 fighters while hidden friends like russia+China for iran OR NATO in case of Ukraine can't sabotage stealthily..

How it's being speculated that Russian warship sunk by uuv credited to Ukraine is actually brits

[uddu]

17 angles and it was safe and saved by the other ships of the carrier group. And also think about
the amount of sorties from the carries to Iran. Think of them not as an carrier but an airfield.

If SAM and replenishment gets over then it withdraws and a second one takes it place.

It cant be this or that......there are a lot of greys. We do need the carriers and we also need more
refuellers, bombers and Netras. No doubt about that.

Folks, the 17 angles attacked AC is back in action. FYI
Carrier USS Gerald R. Ford Departs Croatia After Liberty, Additional Repairs
https://news.usni.org/2026/04/02/carrie ... al-repairs

[uddu]

China can't do anything despite knowing as they have no proof

These are assumptions. There is no rule that mandate that. We assume these things because when Mumbai got hit, we were sharing proof instead of acting. U.S is attacking Iran without any proof. Same way, China will attack Japan or Taiwan without any proof if they think they can win and they can take the damage.

[uddu]

You guys get into the This or That argument, which is really absurd. Carriers are Carriers and Islands are Islands. One cannot replace the other. Nor can Submarines replace the AC's nor can AC's replace the submarines. All has advantages and disadvantages. Having one will not make you win across the board of threats. Each has it's own advantages and disadvantages. So this argument that goes on being Submarine Vs AC's. AC's vs Islands etc are really absurd. Everything has it's own place in a Navy. What can be argued is the numbers. Should we have a 10 AC Navy or 3 is enough or 5 is needed are for debate. Anything else is time wasted. There was a video in which the current Vice Admiral clearly stated the same that every asset has its role to play and he mentioned about a balanced Navy.

I presume you responded to my note. That is not what my note says. Perhaps you are arguing with yourself?

I was not responding you per say. And putting out my thought on the whole debate.

[Manish_P]

An aircraft carrier can stay say 500kms from an enemy's coast for a few months at a time. Think of the resources we need to do it "with unmanned refuellers+Marine Netras+fighters (all taking off from Naval bases)". Tomorrow if the enemy is 2000kms or more from the our bases, then what will be we do?

If the enemy is 2000 kms away from our bases then we are also 2000 kms away from them. How are they going to prosecute the war against us? An enemy who is at that distance and wanting to war with us will be the US and China. And they have a lot of multi-spectrum assets to throw at our 3-4 CBGs

Not saying that we don't need ACs. Just that in the current scenario sub-surface fighting assets which are much more survivable and a bigger threat to the opponent can & are being prioritized.

Even today the enemy is 2000+ Kms away from our bases. The Chinese eastern sea-board. How are we going to park our ACs 500 kms away from there? What sort of long, sea-based logistical chain & land bases (in friendly countries) are required to maintain our CBGs at such a distance from us and a much closer distance for the enemy?

The US maintains a large list of land bases on/near the coasts for precisely this reason.

[Manish_Sharma]

Response of china & debating will make discussion Off Topic

Basic Yamato was best ever Battleship but destroyed by carriers...

If iran had P700 granite & hit Ford with it, then it'd be gone, against swarm of modern missiles specially hypersonics no chance... 1 billion dollar missile swarm kills 30 billion State of Art asset

Still with primitive stuff iran hit it

[uddu]

But so much risk... & if adversary has missile like we have |STAR =Missile+Torpedo| then game over as this missiles will drop the Torpedo much before SAM Defence & then Torpedo hits Destroyers & Carrier

Carrier is a liability, scenario:

China sends cbg against some country & Japan or usa without declaring war send super-silent Soryu or Seawolf & it hits Carrier with Torpedo & slink away, while credit is given for the hits to the country China is attacking then China can't do anything despite knowing as they have no proof

While |Exclusively Airborne Battlegroup with Ghatak refuellers- Netras-fighters even P8i | can go & do job in hours & come back , since one saves money on carrier & it's paraphernalia then the fighter jets & air paraphernalia can be increased multifold..

If ship has piddly 36 fighters, one can send 90 fighters while hidden friends like russia+China for iran OR NATO in case of Ukraine can't sabotage stealthily..

How it's being speculated that Russian warship sunk by uuv credited to Ukraine is actually brits

Risk is there is every aspect of operations. Be it CBG or Submarines. Whatever you said is all true and possible. There is other aspects too. I will just put out some coutner scenarios for fun.

SMART type missiles are mostly meant to be used against submarines. Especially if any asset (Ship or aircraft or even underwater detectors) detects submarine presence close to shore or ship, the SMART missile get launched to destroy it. From land you can launch large number of such missiles based on the stock that you have. Ship launch will have limitations. As of today, we have not yet deployed it on ships. Our objective is to ensure that within 600 km range, no submarine exist or if it launches an attack within that range, we have something to quickly target it with the SMART system.
Submarines will also have their own options to outdo these torpedoes. Many techniques from diving deep to releasing countermeasures etc will happen once the torpedo is detected in water.
Same way ships also will do deploy countermeasures, start maneuver and deploy the anti-torpedo Mareech system (Not all navies have this) to actively take out the torpedo. This is where the super cavitation torpedo's will come into picture. Especially against well defended Surface fleet, Super cavitation torpedoes will give less reaction time to deploy countermeasures and help overcome Mareech like systems.

Ghatak like refuelers though will be useful, but will be limited in the amount of fuel that they can carry. They could sustain limited number of aircraft and you need lot more Ghatak's to fuel whole lot of aircrafts in operation. Though they give the option to land safely for certain aircraft low on fuel.

Third point I did not understand.

Fourth, the Unmanned drones are a threat to both surface ships and submarines. There are Underwater drones that can be deployed along areas and keep looking for submarines and either fire torpedoes or ram into submarines.

[uddu]

Star is another project, which is more or less a cheaper version of the Brahmos kind of supersonic target missile for practice. Could also be used in anti ship role. Especially when the supersonic missile threat increase, you need to practice and test your anti aircraft missiles against such supersonic targets to make sure that your assets are safe. Once the hypersonic era has started, there will be a need to develop and deploy Anti ballistic missiles and Anti aircraft missiles capable of targeting hypersonic missiles of all types. Even target practice missiles of hypersonic variant will be needed.

[Manish_Sharma]

Would love scenario:

China sends it CBG against us

a) we use ASAT to kill their satellites

b) then send a swarm of STAR Torpedo missiles + LR-AShM 1500 km range antiShip missiles

c.)Scorpenes HDWs Kilos sitting silently in their paths unleash Torpedoes at their subs & ships

d.) Finally our UCAVrefuellers+Fighters+Netras head out to do the final job on them

[Manish_Sharma]

Risk is there is every aspect of operations. Be it CBG or Submarines. Whatever you said is all true and possible. There is other aspects too. I will just put out some coutner scenarios for fun.

SMART type missiles are mostly meant to be used against submarines...

It's torpedo can hit anything subsurface or surface there will be no limitation to tie it exclusively to subsurface prey