General News, Questions And Discussions - Indian Navy

[babablacksheep]

and EMALS can be done if more funds and support are given to it.

That's exactly why i'm saying to collaborate with france.
We will save both funds and time.

We do need collab with Korea or Japan but to learn how to build ships much faster than we do now namely by using modular ship building methods etc. This can be especially beneficial not only to our military warships but also to our commercial shipping industry.

1,We already are learning modular ship-building.

2,risking a project as important as a nuclear powered carrier for learning modular construction with partners who have no experience in developing and constructing nuclear powered carriers is not wise to say the least.
Much better to collaborate with them on commercial side, which we are already doing.

 

[RationalGuy]

That's exactly why i'm saying to collaborate with france.
We will save both funds and time.




1,We already are learning modular ship-building.

2,risking a project as important as a nuclear powered carrier for learning modular construction with partners who have no experience in developing and constructing nuclear powered carriers is not wise to say the least.
Much better to collaborate with them on commercial side, which we are already doing.

Dude as I said. Nuclear carrier, we can do it on our own. Korea Japan, we collab for commercial and potentially other military vessels.

 

[babablacksheep]

Dude as I said. Nuclear carrier, we can do it on our own. Korea Japan, we collab for commercial and potentially other military vessels.

Nuclear carrier, we can save money and time by collaborating with French & less chances of mishaps.

And no we can't on own yet, budget limitations for navy is open to see.

 

[RationalGuy]

Nuclear carrier, we can save money and time by collaborating with French & less chances of mishaps.

And no we can't on own yet, budget limitations for navy is open to see.

If funded, we can do it. I meant in terms of technical capability we can have it on the water by 2040 if we give money to it. And AFAIK France had to use American EMALS so they dont exactly have expertise in developing it.

 

[babablacksheep]

If funded, we can do it

Funding it will become lot more easier and overall cheaper if we collab.

And AFAIK France had to use American EMALS so they dont exactly have expertise in developing it.

They do have expertise in building the rest of the nuclear carrier, and expertise in operating catapults, their maintanence, power needs etc.

 

[Subgradewalker]

The opposite will also happen.
Along with next gen engine collab, whose developed tech will also be used by France.
France will also partially depend on india on its future aircraft carrier project.

So I don't see the problem.
Infact it will actually further incentivize the French to not sour relations with India.



Three carrier requirements still exists, subs are important but can't bring airpower, and Vikramaditya will reach retirement age in another decades.
Collaboration with france reduces "monetary" pressure.



Neither has any experience in developing nuclear powered carrier, or even nuclear powered submarine.
Neither any experience in operating catobar carrier.
Neither are actively pursuing attempt to build a catobar carrier( in SK's case all those carrier models are from private companie).


Your points, if i'm being honest are retarded.

The engine Collab isn't a guaranteed sucess. It's only a potential gamechanger. With majorly india funded. But given the lack of options, lack of indigenous system and indo-french ties, it's a risk worth taking.
The case is not same with Naval assets. We have successful experience in AC development. And as for monetary issue.. France does not have enough to really provide big enough space for diverting navy funds towards the Collab. It's going through its own economic considerations.

And the biggest thing to note is that, these two Collab projects doesn't hold same value and importance for France vis a vis India.
Both are very important for India whole France can do without a carrier for some time. And have other projects ongoing for aerospace, let alone it's indigenous foundation.
So yes, it will give France unwanted leverage over India. And that leverage will outweigh any incentive these program can provide if need arises.

Second: Japan, SK are masters when it comes to niche technology and innovation including the shipbuilding capabilities. So, yes a Collab with them leveraging their niche expertise in advanced technologies, innovation mindset focused on sea, Shipbuilding industry buildup knowhow and with our own naval R&D foundation with Navy's hands on experience.. a Collab is very promising. While these two are more likely to participate with dedication due to the shared security threats and needs among the three. They need it as much as we do.
And a platform like AC to be used in future warfare scenarios can't be built anew without keeping new tech in mind. Since we have the needed expertise in building an AC, with experience in nuclear propulsion too and the foundation to build it for AC.. we can focus on developing the key systems for the said AC with both of em. And just because you don't see Japan and Sk building an AC of their own right now, doesn't mean they won't or don't need it. US' flip-flop stance has heightened the risk for them. You can be sure to see increased focus on naval warfare from now on. Japan has the money required for investment too, and indo-japan collabs have shown good results too. Our electronics industry has a deep japanese & korean imprint.
They have proven to be more reliable.

We are just moving towards giving navy more resources and focusing on maritime domain. While Japan has done it and inbuilt the psychology for it due to its geography.

Collab also means developing something new, french can be consulted anytime if need arises. Both India and Japan are in Collab with France on their own projects.

 

[babablacksheep]

The engine Collab isn't a guaranteed sucess. It's only a potential gamechanger. With majorly india funded

Nothing is a guaranteed success, neither collab neither purely domestic project.

But given the lack of options, lack of indigenous system and indo-french ties, it's a risk worth taking.

Yeah

The case is not same with Naval assets. We have successful experience in AC development. And as for monetary issue.. France does not have enough to really provide big enough space for diverting navy funds towards the Collab. It's going through its own economic considerations.

It is the same case, we have not put a nuclear powered aircraft carrier in water.

For monetary issue, France is literally building a nuclear powered emals using aircraft carrier, they are literally spending money, billions.
So it don't know what the fu*k you talking about france not being a help in monetary issue.
Plus more carriers ordered total= lower per unit cost.

Second: Japan, SK are masters when it comes to niche technology and innovation including the shipbuilding capabilities. So

Sk and Japan are not masters of building a nuclear powered aircraft carrier, they are novice.
Your statement is entirely false.
Commercial shipbuilding =/= military shipbuilding.

. So, yes a Collab with them leveraging their niche expertise in advanced technologies, innovation mindset focused on sea, Shipbuilding industry buildup knowhow and with our own naval R&D foundation with Navy's hands on experience.. a Collab is very promising

Words of jargon words, what niche tech? Mass producing commercial vessels? I'm talking about a aircraft carrier for fu*k sake.
SK's company literally collaborates with British firms in designing their carrier concepts that they show.

Industry, shipbuilding capacity etc is for commercial sector, and we are already collaborating with both.

And a platform like AC to be used in future warfare scenarios can't be built anew without keeping new tech in mind. Since we have the needed expertise in building an AC, with experience in nuclear propulsion too and the foundation to build it for AC.. we can focus on developing the key systems for the said AC with both of em.

Wake up to reality, Both of them haven't shown any desire to go for a nuclear powered catobar carrier.

And just because you don't see Japan and Sk building an AC of their own right now, doesn't mean they won't or don't need it

They haven't shown any desire as of now, simple as that, france is literally building one.
Once again, wake up to reality.
Dreaming of some uncertain future to conform to your baseless bias.

. You can be sure to see increased focus on naval warfare from now on.

No I won't, your words are not the truth.
What i'm sure is france is "literally building it".

Japan has the money required for investment too, and indo-japan collabs have shown good results too.

So has france, and beleive me once again, they are literally investing money right now, developing its systems.
This is happening in reality, not in your dreams unlike Japan or sk.
Our collab with france has been successfully too, Shakti engine.

Our electronics industry has a deep japanese & korean imprint.
They have proven to be more reliable

Seriously the fu*k, where does this come from?
Are you seriously retard*d?

Collab also means developing something new, french can be consulted anytime if need arises. Both India and Japan are in Collab with France on their own projects.

That's your desire, france is a better partner to collab by pure sense.
All your fuc*ing stup*d mental gymnastic to go collab with countries who have never made an nuclear powered carrier, have no experience in building one, have not shown any desire to build one and rejecting a countries which has all this and is literally building one right now.

For shipbuilding capacity, collab is on commercial sector not on aircraft carrier.



This is the most stu*pid post i have ever replied to in this forum.

 

[Subgradewalker]

Nothing is a guaranteed success, neither collab neither purely domestic project.


Yeah

It is the same case, we have not put a nuclear powered aircraft carrier in water.

For monetary issue, France is literally building a nuclear powered emals using aircraft carrier, they are literally spending money, billions.
So it don't know what the fu*k you talking about france not being a help in monetary issue.
Plus more carriers ordered total= lower per unit cost.


Sk and Japan are not masters of building a nuclear powered aircraft carrier, they are novice.
Your statement is entirely false.
Commercial shipbuilding =/= military shipbuilding.



Words of jargon words, what niche tech? Mass producing commercial vessels? I'm talking about a aircraft carrier for fu*k sake.
SK's company literally collaborates with British firms in designing their carrier concepts that they show.

Industry, shipbuilding capacity etc is for commercial sector, and we are already collaborating with both.



Wake up to reality, Both of them haven't shown any desire to go for a nuclear powered catobar carrier.



They haven't shown any desire as of now, simple as that, france is literally building one.
Once again, wake up to reality.
Dreaming of some uncertain future to conform to your baseless bias.



No I won't, your words are not the truth.
What i'm sure is france is "literally building it".



So has france, and beleive me once again, they are literally investing money right now, developing its systems.
This is happening in reality, not in your dreams unlike Japan or sk.
Our collab with france has been successfully too, Shakti engine.




Seriously the fu*k, where does this come from?
Are you seriously retard*d?



That's your desire, france is a better partner to collab by pure sense.
All your fuc*ing stup*d mental gymnastic to go collab with countries who have never made an nuclear powered carrier, have no experience in building one, have not shown any desire to build one and rejecting a countries which has all this and is literally building one right now.

For shipbuilding capacity, collab is on commercial sector not on aircraft carrier.



This is the most stu*pid post i have ever replied to in this forum.

Damn sheep, i didnt know it was that time of the month for you. Have some sweets, will ya. Btw good afternoon to you too.
Now if your tantrums are over...

1. Is France building the infra in France or foreign soil? How does it provide relief to India in building that military-industrial complex in naval domain? Even for engine, it's us who are investing with frances Collab, in our own infrastructure for engine development. Will France build AC in India ( shared content) and then import?

2. Our expertise in nuclear propulsion is better than expertise in FA engine. We have developed SSBN , one of the most difficult tech when it comes to nuclear propulsion. The engineering for nuclear propulsion in AC is less complex or demanding. So, we have enough foundation to work on it ourselves.

3. At one hand we want india to be self reliant and increase the scale of military- industry complex.. on other hand you speak from such a narrow vision.
If you think shipbuilding (at scale) experience and expertise in civil domain has no effect on building a modern AC, then you've just boxed yourself in the same mindset as IGs nationalisation of Defense sector whole which gave us HAL, DRDO etc.. the same which we criticise a lot for mismanagement.
You have got to start thinking from the foundation, not the top down.. where you chose a product and then Collab so you can get hand holding. It makes sense of you're new to it. Not when you've got the capability and potential to do it yourself. What we lack is resources & time for AC, not the talent or potential.
At a time when our navy is resource constrained, our shipyards are expanding their infrastructure to increase production rate & efficiency.. just to meet the demands for subs and conventional ships.. which navy plans to increase. Taking upon development and construction of Aircraft carrier means trading off with other important vessels which will be in higher demand for our needs in future.
Japans and SK expertise here is very much in demand and they have the money which France can't invest in Indian infrastructure.

4. As for the EMALS tech you are touting so much.. even France doesn't have it, neither are they developing it. They have ordered it from USA, for the PANG. So there goes away your biggest selling point for the Collab. For rest of development go to point 1.

5. On your point that japan doesn't have capability to build an aircraft carrier or a CATOBAR.. you're so so mistaken. It's already converting it's heli-carrier to small AC. That is when, it doesn't want to antagonaise China.
Just because japan has not built any doesn't mean they can't. They are very much involved in development of US naval technology and have the maritime expertise dating back to WW2. It hasn't gone anywhere.
You can do a quick search on japans capability and it's restraint in increasing own navy after WW2.
And japanese companies are some of the best on earth when it comes to innovation.. that's why I specifically mentioned that in such Collab.. India's experience in building AC and nuclear propulsion, sensors etc with japans experience in niche advanced technology can provide synergy to the Collab. As opposed to french who more or less have same type of shipbuilding industry as us.
Think for future. Think comprehensively and long lasting. Even engine Collab will be very multifaceted involving the building of key infra like testing, blade manufacturing etc.. which I do not have expertise in to talk at length. But know enuf to acknowledge their importance. Just an engine isnt enough, neither is it the goal of govt.

To make you understand how japan has the capability.. I will have to go technical, which I will post after this.

6. My point still stands.. AC is too big of a strategic asset to depend on French. Given we have other collabs going on. That doesn't not fit the strategic calculus of India. Notwithstanding the fact that they are investing that money in their countrys shipbuilding capacity.. not others. Neither do they have the key tech i.e. EMALS which is must for future needs.
And AC in future isnt about just big hunk of metal run by nuclear power to carry AC.. in future, it will be the moving command center and part of the Network warfare. With option to Connect with land and air forces too. IN is already incorporating such technology in modern ships.

These kind are the key tech you Collab for with Japan.. they are masters when it comes to comms, material science, AI etc.. Not just for one or two AC.
Get SK to expand our shipbuilding output. With ToT on advanced methods and machinery. Learn and incorporate them in own shipyards.. expand to scale so that development of an AC doesn't eat away at key necessities. For example: subs, sea drones, Unamaned subs, MUMT in underwater.. you need space to build at the scale required just to become a security provider in Indian Ocean.

Note: My point of discussion isn't about France vs Japan in Aircraft building. But first the rationale that Collab with France for full development of AC makes us too dependent on them ( still need to invest in construction complexes in India).. and due to that, french being ruled out for now, who could be the next good option for a Collab for us to build an indigenous Aircraft carrier.
Many more things I wanna explain, but it's hard to in writing. Let's have a chat someday if you wanna discuss on capacity building and other defense stuff.

Good day. And chill.

 

[Speedster1]

Despite a long history of building carriers, the French Navy had to practically redesign the flight deck of the CdG carrier back in the 1980s with US consultancy.

The 1990s ADS design (now INS Vikrant) was supposed to be based on CdG (but in a smaller avatar) before IN switched to Italy's Fincantieri for design consultancy.

 

[Ashwin]

 

[STEPHEN COHEN]

We can only construct A 60000 ton AC , that too a conventionally powered

We neither have the ABILITY to make Nuclear powered ACs nor the MONEY required for their daily operational cost

Secondly Indian Navy AIRCRAFT CARRIERS will always remain confined to Indian Ocean ie from Malacca to Aden

Only our Nuclear Subs will prowl in the Pacific as our Nuclear Deterrent

That is why we are expanding our Nuclear Submarine fleet

A 8000 KM range , MIRV , SLBM
is what we really need

 

[babablacksheep]

We can only construct A 60000 ton AC , that too a conventionally powered

We neither have the ABILITY to make Nuclear powered ACs nor the MONEY required for their daily operational cost

Secondly Indian Navy AIRCRAFT CARRIERS will always remain confined to Indian Ocean ie from Malacca to Aden

Only our Nuclear Subs will prowl in the Pacific as our Nuclear Deterrent

That is why we are expanding our Nuclear Submarine fleet

A 8000 KM range , MIRV , SLBM
is what we really need

Malacca is not the only Strait.

There's Sunda Strait, lombok Strait, these straits while farther away are actually seeing more and more traffic as Malacca while shortest route is quite congested.
Also larger ships prefee deeper depth of those straits more than malacca


So in the future, just blocking Malacca ain't gonna be enough.

We need a naval task force able to reach and sustain for weeks to month long period to the Southern side of Indonesia above Australia to be able to enforce a effective blockade.


In future Just blocking Malacca to ships carrying raw material to China, will hurt them, but relatively mild enough that China may just accept extra cost of circumnavigating the Malacca straits, it won't hurt enough to force china into the negotiating table.


That's the reason we need more aircraft carriers and SSN's.
Also mobile sosus network and amphibious heli carrier.

 

[STEPHEN COHEN]

Malacca is not the only Strait.

There's Sunda Strait, lombok Strait, these straits while farther away are actually seeing more and more traffic as Malacca while shortest route is quite congested.
Also larger ships prefee deeper depth of those straits more than malacca


So in the future, just blocking Malacca ain't gonna be enough.

We need a naval task force able to reach and sustain for weeks to month long period to the Southern side of Indonesia above Australia to be able to enforce a effective blockade.


In future Just blocking Malacca to ships carrying raw material to China, will hurt them, but relatively mild enough that China may just accept extra cost of circumnavigating the Malacca straits, it won't hurt enough to force china into the negotiating table.


That's the reason we need more aircraft carriers and SSN's.
Also mobile sosus network and amphibious heli carrier.

In the event of a conflict
China will probe our weaknesses

So we need Balanced Armed forces

There is no need for China to have a Naval conflict with India in Indian Ocean

It can test our Air force and Army in the Himalayas

Or try to grab territory like Ladakh or Arunachal

Likewise we can threaten
Chumbi valley or Aksai Chin or their Airbases in Tibet

So to spend Billions on Naval Ships which might never see conflict Is a big mistake

And we must remember that PLA and PLAAF can use Pakistani territory to
Attack us

So it is better to spend on IAF and Rocket force than on Nuclear Powered Aircraft Carriers

 

[babablacksheep]

In the event of a conflict
China will probe our weaknesses

So we need Balanced Armed forces

There is no need for China to have a Naval conflict with India in Indian Ocean

It can test our Air force and Army in the Himalayas

Or try to grab territory like Ladakh or Arunachal

Likewise we can threaten
Chumbi valley or Aksai Chin or their Airbases in Tibet

So to spend Billions on Naval Ships which might never see conflict Is a big mistake

And we must remember that PLA and PLAAF can use Pakistani territory to
Attack us

So it is better to spend on IAF and Rocket force than on Nuclear Powered Aircraft Carriers

The spending on navy, is not to preemptively blockade, but to have the ability to blockade if a need really arises, this ability itself will deter china from trying to expand the conflict into a full scale war over the Himalayas, as if they can expand the conflict over wider region on wide then so can we over ocean.

This ability is to be used only when we are in dire needs.


Our ability to take on superior chinese military over the Himalaya will depend on how local the conflict is based on both on area and duration of the conflict.
The more the conflict expands into larger region and for longer duration more the chinese military and industrial might will start of overwhelm us.

Our ability to blockade in this case act as a deterrence, to make the chinese think twice about expanding the conflict into larger and larger scale war.


Yes, so i do want us to spend Billions on Naval ship that may never see conflict.
They'll still serve their purpose even if they never see conflict.



Kinda like nukes.


Though not at the expensive of army and airforce.

 

[STEPHEN COHEN]

The spending on navy, is not to preemptively blockade, but to have the ability to blockade if a need really arises, this ability itself will deter china from trying to expand the conflict into a full scale war over the Himalayas, as if they can expand the conflict over wider region on wide then so can we over ocean.

This ability is to be used only when we are in dire needs.


Our ability to take on superior chinese military over the Himalaya will depend on how local the conflict is based on both on area and duration of the conflict.
The more the conflict expands into larger region and for longer duration more the chinese military and industrial might will start of overwhelm us.

Our ability to blockade in this case act as a deterrence, to make the chinese think twice about expanding the conflict into larger and larger scale war.


Yes, so i do want us to spend Billions on Naval ship that may never see conflict.
They'll still serve their purpose even if they never see conflict.



Kinda like nukes.


Though not at the expensive of army and airforce.

We don't have infinite resources

And presuming that Any Indian Navy Surface Fleet task force , say 15 ships cross Malacca into South China Sea

Don't you think they would be easy targets for PLAN

Similarly PLAN would be targeted by IN in the Indian Ocean

That is why US has BASES all over the World

Without such bases , All their Fleets are useless

Therefore any meaningful Naval Deterrence against China will come from Nuclear Submarines only

 

[Subgradewalker]

The spending on navy, is not to preemptively blockade, but to have the ability to blockade if a need really arises, this ability itself will deter china from trying to expand the conflict into a full scale war over the Himalayas, as if they can expand the conflict over wider region on wide then so can we over ocean.

This ability is to be used only when we are in dire needs.


Our ability to take on superior chinese military over the Himalaya will depend on how local the conflict is based on both on area and duration of the conflict.
The more the conflict expands into larger region and for longer duration more the chinese military and industrial might will start of overwhelm us.

Our ability to blockade in this case act as a deterrence, to make the chinese think twice about expanding the conflict into larger and larger scale war.


Yes, so i do want us to spend Billions on Naval ship that may never see conflict.
They'll still serve their purpose even if they never see conflict.



Kinda like nukes.


Though not at the expensive of army and airforce.

SSNs, SSKs, SSGNs.. basically underwater assets are bigger deterrence in such cases. It's not as easy to blockade the straits even with an carrier given the huge visibility. And in an event where we are clashing with China alone w/o Quad.. any blockade will have ramifications on international Trade as a lot of other nations depend on them.
Just yesterday we agreed at the advantages of underwater domain. A submarine penetrating into SCS for striking eastern front will deter China more than any aircraft carrier led blockade can. Such assets encompassing every domain of underwater warfare along with non AC ships is also a credible deterrence for straits blockades.

We need to also factor in that China's everything of value is on eastern front. And you bet they have robust ASW in SCS. So we need our own advanced subs, UUVs , tactics to penetrate and pose a big threat to them without relying on USN.

Meanwhile we can build an aircraft carrier when our economy and domestic industry allows us to. Better to focus on building capacity and capability so by the time our current AC retires ( after extension via refurbishment etc).. we can embark on construction phase by integrating and assembling the technology already available to us.
The nature of warfare is changing so rapidly... I would rather that GoI invests in quantumIndia and IndiaAI mission, if they have some extra cash lying around.

 

[babablacksheep]

We don't have infinite resources

And presuming that Any Indian Navy Surface Fleet task force , say 15 ships cross Malacca into South China Sea

Don't you think they would be easy targets for PLAN

Similarly PLAN would be targeted by IN in the Indian Ocean

That is why US has BASES all over the World

Without such bases , All their Fleets are useless

Therefore any meaningful Naval Deterrence against China will come from Nuclear Submarines only

The fleet i'm envisioning is of 2035+.
We will have enough resources by then, but planning and steps to achieve that fleet needs to start now, it takes decades to build a navy.


And I never mentioned crossing Malacca into scs.
We don't need to cross straits, we will operate in IOR near the straits.

 

[babablacksheep]

SSNs, SSKs, SSGNs.. basically underwater assets are bigger deterrence in such cases

That thinking doesn't take into account full spectrum warfare.

SSN for example can't do shit about maritime planes and helis.
China with its carrier task force and aerial tankers can send them to search areas of ocean( relatively narrow areas as they are near a choke point) to hunt our SSN which is causing blockade.
Even I ou SSN managed to not get hunted, it will still heavily restrict its movements, so it can't blockade.


Now what do we do, we need to counter those maritime planes, drones, helis.


For that we can use our fighter jets, but that's expensive as you said to bring a air craft carrier.

So lets send some destroyers with air defense missiles to create an exclusion zone for our ssn to operate and both destroyers and ssn will blockade.


Now china will send its fighter jets to target our destroyers, launching anti ship missiles out of reach of our destroyers air defense missiles.

Now we gotta protect the destroyers from enemy fighter jets.
We need something that can level the playing field as ships are at massive disadvantage against fighter jets.
We need to bring our own fighters and awacs, to protect our fleet and for early warning, also we can send our fighters to target enemy aircrafr carrier, another way of deterrence.
Amd loosing a fighter is lot cheaper than loosing a ship.
Even if enemy has superior fighters, warfield is still more level than it would've been other wise.
Plus assymteric tactics and more flexibility.


Now enemy SSN will also lurk and try to hunt our ssn and our ships.

So along with our ssn , we also need our own maritime plane or helis for anti sub role, and fighter jet will provide air cover for our anti sub aerial platform to fly.


Now you have a entire aircraft carrier task force created.
We can also add space based assets.


So you need every type of asset to form a complete fighting unit, so cover any weak areas of each other.



So SSN alone won't do, specifically against china.
Carrier and fighters alone won't do.
Anti sub platforms alone won't do.
You need everything.



Pakistan for example did not think that much about dense air defense network, a large gaping hole in full spectrum warfare and paid the price.

In the later days of op sindoor we literally grounded their airforce

 

[Subgradewalker]

That thinking doesn't take into account full spectrum warfare.

SSN for example can't do shit about maritime planes and helis.
China with its carrier task force and aerial tankers can send them to search areas of ocean( relatively narrow areas as they are near a choke point) to hunt our SSN which is causing blockade.
Even I ou SSN managed to not get hunted, it will still heavily restrict its movements, so it can't blockade.


Now what do we do, we need to counter those maritime planes, drones, helis.


For that we can use our fighter jets, but that's expensive as you said to bring a air craft carrier.

So lets send some destroyers with air defense missiles to create an exclusion zone for our ssn to operate and both destroyers and ssn will blockade.


Now china will send its fighter jets to target our destroyers, launching anti ship missiles out of reach of our destroyers air defense missiles.

Now we gotta protect the destroyers from enemy fighter jets.
We need something that can level the playing field as ships are at massive disadvantage against fighter jets.
We need to bring our own fighters and awacs, to protect our fleet and for early warning, also we can send our fighters to target enemy aircrafr carrier, another way of deterrence.
Amd loosing a fighter is lot cheaper than loosing a ship.
Even if enemy has superior fighters, warfield is still more level than it would've been other wise.
Plus assymteric tactics and more flexibility.


Now enemy SSN will also lurk and try to hunt our ssn and our ships.

So along with our ssn , we also need our own maritime plane or helis for anti sub role, and fighter jet will provide air cover for our anti sub aerial platform to fly.


Now you have a entire aircraft carrier task force created.
We can also add space based assets.


So you need every type of asset to form a complete fighting unit, so cover any weak areas of each other.



So SSN alone won't do, specifically against china.
Carrier and fighters alone won't do.
Anti sub platforms alone won't do.
You need everything.

You did not get the main point of my rationale. It is not to blockade, but to strike on eastern front of China. By penetrating into SCS.
If China increases war on our land borders through 2 fronts.. then we need to actively take the fight to their eastern front. A credible threat to their eastern front will be the deciding factor of you wanna use maritime assets to deter Chinese on land.
But the biggest issue is also that, it's the main battle area for them against USA. So , they are prepared. Hence we need to be prudent in our investments to build that deterrence.

Secondly, we do have AC for defending the eastern front. It is there to support pure naval assets. If we didn't have any, then a carrier would've become the primary need rather than subs.

And I agree that we need everything, but we can't right now. Not even in next 10 years. Not everything. So, it's about tradeoffs. Subs, ASW vs AC.

And I believe development of andaman and nicobar island chain is far better to leverage IAFs role in that part of our strategy.

While the IAF and IA need more support from industry to equip them. Navy can work as defender and deterrence in near future while army and airforce will be the key to nuteralise Pakistan quickly. And break connectivity of pak-china.

 

[babablacksheep]

, but to strike on eastern front of China. By penetrating into SCS.

That's entering a more risky and heavily defended enemy home territory. In blockading we will still be operating away from SCS still in IOR.

If you wanna threaten chinese navy SCS then better option is to put missiles like LRASHM in Anadamar Nicobar islands.

Though we can also put it in our SSGN which will still remain close to IOR and not venture too much inside SCS.

But chinese can do the same to our navy with their SSN, SSGN and putting hypersonic anti ship missiles on them.

So we are opening new front, but its not as impacting, plus we are equally at risk.

The idea of blockade is causing much more damage to china.

Not equal front where both countries will use SSGN and SSN's to lob hypersonic anti ship missiles at each other's navy

In this case, opening naval front doesn't make sense.