5 problems holding back the navy

[Austerlitz]

1.Excessive focus on number of platforms rather than weapon systems on platforms.
Consider this -
All of the kamorta,p17a and kolkata as well as vishakpatnam classes are undergunned for their size.32 barak-8s on destroyers is just not good enough.Saving grace is brahmos and barak-8 are world beater systems.
Another example is induction of scorpene submarines with old torpedoes scavenged from u209s.Unthinkable that the newest submarines lack either the blackshark or the seahake.

2.Critical holes in ASW capability -
Thankfully the new ACTAS sonars are now arriving ,but biggest problem is lack of ASW helos with dwindling numbers.P-8Is are overburdened.Need the helo tenders to move now quickly.Having ASW frigates and corvettes with no helos is worthless.
Final big gap in ASW capability is lack of minesweepers.If Pakistani or chinese subs mine any chokepoints or important transit areas,we will be in a bind.

3.Redundant equipment on frontline warships -
Delhi class,talwar class and shivalik class are weak against saturation missile strikes(exactly the kind Pakistanis want to use with their coastal defense area denial tactics) due to the obsolete shtil-1 arm launcher.The barak-1 on delhi and shivalik are saving grace but can only protect themselves.This however means that 12 frontline warships have limited value as fleet escorts.
Another redundant system being entertained is the RBU.Horrible range,increases RCS.Every major navy has moved past these type of systems.PLAN is using ASROC like rocket assisted depth charges,NATO uses ASROC,Russia is moving to PAKET-ng anti torpedo torpedoes/torpedoes complex.These new systems have 5-10 times the range of RBU.RBU is useless against modern subs with its range,only use is a hardkill last ditch torpedo killer.(which paket is just better at).Yet IN continues to install these mounts on its latest warships that will serve another 40 years.These are also negating advantages of flush deck by increasing RCS.The RBU rockets also taking up deck space.We need to move to a PAKET-NG/ASROC type combo very soon.

4.Neglect of Andaman nicobar command -
The PLAN is expanding rapidly,yet upgradation of this crucial strategic base is not keeping pace.We need radar installations,a marine garrison,land based brahmos batteries as well as hardened airbase for land based fighters and a submarine base here,along with provisions to hold missile corvettes and ASW corvettes.But so far nothing really substantial.

5.Wrong priorities,obsession with carriers,neglect of submarines -
IN by and large is setting itself up to becoming a 'show the flag' navy.The obsession with blue water tag and carriers seems to have overridden its common sense.Lets do some logic.IMO Navy at current budgetary levels cant afford more than 2 carriers.Any ideas of 3 carriers should be 15 years down the line when economy is strong enough.Even then,I don't think we need more than 3 carriers till we become economic superpower.(2050)Why?
Indian airforce which is a whole seperate branch with its own budget can't afford more than 36 rafales,yet navy with its huge commitments is dreaming of 57 rafales or even 5th gen.This is absurd.The costs of operating carriers is catastrophically high,and their effectiveness is fast declining due to better targeting sensors and missiles.They are not the future of naval warfare.They take up huge amount of assets to protect them.Carriers are a must to protect the fleet in open oceans far from friendly land based air support,but due to our peninsular geography and andaman we will almost always have land based air support when fighting in IOR.In this case 2 carriers is sufficient with one more after 2030-2035.We must divert saved resources thus into making lots of diesel submarines.Submarines are the future of naval warfare.

But IN is oblivious to this.It seems they want to fight submarines with surface ships which they are building in dozens while sub programmes wallow in neglect.Look at the IN's plan - 24 submarines in total.Absolutely weak.This includes 4 SSBNs which won't enter direct combat yet are precious and 6 SSNs.4 SSNs will probably have to protect 4 SSBNs and 2 to escort carrier battle groups.This would leave us with what ?14 diesel submarines?
Does the IN really think this is sufficient?Pakistanis will get 3 agostas and 8 yuans = 11 diesel subs all with AIP.PLAN will have 15-20 SSNs and 50 odd modern diesel subs in 10 years.Our new scorpenes don't have AIP.Agains indicating lack of foresight or interest by navy planners in submarine arm.

What we need to do is limit building too many surface ships,stop at 2 carriers and build lots of diesel subs with AIP along withe the 6+4 nuclear subs.We should have 26-30 diesel subs(which cost far less than nuke subs,just look at the enormously costly akula lease for 3 billion) along with ten nuke subs for 40 subs.24 submarines is far too weak.Retire the older destroyers if necessary.30 good diesel subs will give pause to any adversary in the IOR ,leaving the nuke subs for strategic tasks.

Navy has come leaps and bounds and shown the way to other 2 services on how to reduce imports and use homemade equipment without compromising quality,but i feel these issues need to be addressed.

 

[Abingdonboy]

1.Excessive focus on number of platforms rather than weapon systems on platforms.
Consider this -
All of the kamorta,p17a and kolkata as well as vishakpatnam classes are undergunned for their size.32 barak-8s on destroyers is just not good enough.Saving grace is brahmos and barak-8 are world beater systems.
Another example is induction of scorpene submarines with old torpedoes scavenged from u209s.Unthinkable that the newest submarines lack either the blackshark or the seahake.

2.Critical holes in ASW capability -
Thankfully the new ACTAS sonars are now arriving ,but biggest problem is lack of ASW helos with dwindling numbers.P-8Is are overburdened.Need the helo tenders to move now quickly.Having ASW frigates and corvettes with no helos is worthless.
Final big gap in ASW capability is lack of minesweepers.If *censored* or chinese subs mine any chokepoints or important transit areas,we will be in a bind.

3.Redundant equipment on frontline warships -
Delhi class,talwar class and shivalik class are weak against saturation missile strikes(exactly the kind Pakistanis want to use with their coastal defense area denial tactics) due to the obsolete shtil-1 arm launcher.The barak-1 on delhi and shivalik are saving grace but can only protect themselves.This however means that 12 frontline warships have limited value as fleet escorts.
Another redundant system being entertained is the RBU.Horrible range,increases RCS.Every major navy has moved past these type of systems.PLAN is using ASROC like rocket assisted depth charges,NATO uses ASROC,Russia is moving to PAKET-ng anti torpedo torpedoes/torpedoes complex.These new systems have 5-10 times the range of RBU.RBU is useless against modern subs with its range,only use is a hardkill last ditch torpedo killer.(which paket is just better at).Yet IN continues to install these mounts on its latest warships that will serve another 40 years.These are also negating advantages of flush deck by increasing RCS.The RBU rockets also taking up deck space.We need to move to a PAKET-NG/ASROC type combo very soon.

4.Neglect of Andaman nicobar command -
The PLAN is expanding rapidly,yet upgradation of this crucial strategic base is not keeping pace.We need radar installations,a marine garrison,land based brahmos batteries as well as hardened airbase for land based fighters and a submarine base here,along with provisions to hold missile corvettes and ASW corvettes.But so far nothing really substantial.

5.Wrong priorities,obsession with carriers,neglect of submarines -
IN by and large is setting itself up to becoming a 'show the flag' navy.The obsession with blue water tag and carriers seems to have overridden its common sense.Lets do some logic.IMO Navy at current budgetary levels cant afford more than 2 carriers.Any ideas of 3 carriers should be 15 years down the line when economy is strong enough.Even then,I don't think we need more than 3 carriers till we become economic superpower.(2050)Why?
Indian airforce which is a whole seperate branch with its own budget can't afford more than 36 rafales,yet navy with its huge commitments is dreaming of 57 rafales or even 5th gen.This is absurd.The costs of operating carriers is catastrophically high,and their effectiveness is fast declining due to better targeting sensors and missiles.They are not the future of naval warfare.They take up huge amount of assets to protect them.Carriers are a must to protect the fleet in open oceans far from friendly land based air support,but due to our peninsular geography and andaman we will almost always have land based air support when fighting in IOR.In this case 2 carriers is sufficient with one more after 2030-2035.We must divert saved resources thus into making lots of diesel submarines.Submarines are the future of naval warfare.

But IN is oblivious to this.It seems they want to fight submarines with surface ships which they are building in dozens while sub programmes wallow in neglect.Look at the IN's plan - 24 submarines in total.Absolutely weak.This includes 4 SSBNs which won't enter direct combat yet are precious and 6 SSNs.4 SSNs will probably have to protect 4 SSBNs and 2 to escort carrier battle groups.This would leave us with what ?14 diesel submarines?
Does the IN really think this is sufficient?Pakistanis will get 3 agostas and 8 yuans = 11 diesel subs all with AIP.PLAN will have 15-20 SSNs and 50 odd modern diesel subs in 10 years.Our new scorpenes don't have AIP.Agains indicating lack of foresight or interest by navy planners in submarine arm.

What we need to do is limit building too many surface ships,stop at 2 carriers and build lots of diesel subs with AIP along withe the 6+4 nuclear subs.We should have 26-30 diesel subs(which cost far less than nuke subs,just look at the enormously costly akula lease for 3 billion) along with ten nuke subs for 40 subs.24 submarines is far too weak.Retire the older destroyers if necessary.30 good diesel subs will give pause to any adversary in the IOR ,leaving the nuke subs for strategic tasks.

Navy has come leaps and bounds and shown the way to other 2 services on how to reduce imports and use homemade equipment without compromising quality,but i feel these issues need to be addressed.

To point one I’d say it’s been debunked. The navy has declared their doctrine is to prioritise range4/endurance and sea keeping along with having ample space on board for extra crew/troops/visitors should the need arise.

This is a good analysis on Karmota that can be use to extrapolate the IN’s approach to vessel design:


Kamorta Class : Analysis of India’s Deadly Anti-Submarine Corvette



The Kamorta is not under-armed, but over-sized

 

[sid4587]

1.Excessive focus on number of platforms rather than weapon systems on platforms.
Consider this -
All of the kamorta,p17a and kolkata as well as vishakpatnam classes are undergunned for their size.32 barak-8s on destroyers is just not good enough.Saving grace is brahmos and barak-8 are world beater systems.
Another example is induction of scorpene submarines with old torpedoes scavenged from u209s.Unthinkable that the newest submarines lack either the blackshark or the seahake.

2.Critical holes in ASW capability -
Thankfully the new ACTAS sonars are now arriving ,but biggest problem is lack of ASW helos with dwindling numbers.P-8Is are overburdened.Need the helo tenders to move now quickly.Having ASW frigates and corvettes with no helos is worthless.
Final big gap in ASW capability is lack of minesweepers.If *censored* or chinese subs mine any chokepoints or important transit areas,we will be in a bind.

3.Redundant equipment on frontline warships -
Delhi class,talwar class and shivalik class are weak against saturation missile strikes(exactly the kind Pakistanis want to use with their coastal defense area denial tactics) due to the obsolete shtil-1 arm launcher.The barak-1 on delhi and shivalik are saving grace but can only protect themselves.This however means that 12 frontline warships have limited value as fleet escorts.
Another redundant system being entertained is the RBU.Horrible range,increases RCS.Every major navy has moved past these type of systems.PLAN is using ASROC like rocket assisted depth charges,NATO uses ASROC,Russia is moving to PAKET-ng anti torpedo torpedoes/torpedoes complex.These new systems have 5-10 times the range of RBU.RBU is useless against modern subs with its range,only use is a hardkill last ditch torpedo killer.(which paket is just better at).Yet IN continues to install these mounts on its latest warships that will serve another 40 years.These are also negating advantages of flush deck by increasing RCS.The RBU rockets also taking up deck space.We need to move to a PAKET-NG/ASROC type combo very soon.

4.Neglect of Andaman nicobar command -
The PLAN is expanding rapidly,yet upgradation of this crucial strategic base is not keeping pace.We need radar installations,a marine garrison,land based brahmos batteries as well as hardened airbase for land based fighters and a submarine base here,along with provisions to hold missile corvettes and ASW corvettes.But so far nothing really substantial.

5.Wrong priorities,obsession with carriers,neglect of submarines -
IN by and large is setting itself up to becoming a 'show the flag' navy.The obsession with blue water tag and carriers seems to have overridden its common sense.Lets do some logic.IMO Navy at current budgetary levels cant afford more than 2 carriers.Any ideas of 3 carriers should be 15 years down the line when economy is strong enough.Even then,I don't think we need more than 3 carriers till we become economic superpower.(2050)Why?
Indian airforce which is a whole seperate branch with its own budget can't afford more than 36 rafales,yet navy with its huge commitments is dreaming of 57 rafales or even 5th gen.This is absurd.The costs of operating carriers is catastrophically high,and their effectiveness is fast declining due to better targeting sensors and missiles.They are not the future of naval warfare.They take up huge amount of assets to protect them.Carriers are a must to protect the fleet in open oceans far from friendly land based air support,but due to our peninsular geography and andaman we will almost always have land based air support when fighting in IOR.In this case 2 carriers is sufficient with one more after 2030-2035.We must divert saved resources thus into making lots of diesel submarines.Submarines are the future of naval warfare.

But IN is oblivious to this.It seems they want to fight submarines with surface ships which they are building in dozens while sub programmes wallow in neglect.Look at the IN's plan - 24 submarines in total.Absolutely weak.This includes 4 SSBNs which won't enter direct combat yet are precious and 6 SSNs.4 SSNs will probably have to protect 4 SSBNs and 2 to escort carrier battle groups.This would leave us with what ?14 diesel submarines?
Does the IN really think this is sufficient?Pakistanis will get 3 agostas and 8 yuans = 11 diesel subs all with AIP.PLAN will have 15-20 SSNs and 50 odd modern diesel subs in 10 years.Our new scorpenes don't have AIP.Agains indicating lack of foresight or interest by navy planners in submarine arm.

What we need to do is limit building too many surface ships,stop at 2 carriers and build lots of diesel subs with AIP along withe the 6+4 nuclear subs.We should have 26-30 diesel subs(which cost far less than nuke subs,just look at the enormously costly akula lease for 3 billion) along with ten nuke subs for 40 subs.24 submarines is far too weak.Retire the older destroyers if necessary.30 good diesel subs will give pause to any adversary in the IOR ,leaving the nuke subs for strategic tasks.

Navy has come leaps and bounds and shown the way to other 2 services on how to reduce imports and use homemade equipment without compromising quality,but i feel these issues need to be addressed.

First of all Thanks for opening a very good thread !
1 - We will keep building one carrier always and I do not see that changing for next 30 years. The 65k ton one will be first of that class and we may go for one more, by 2050 it will keep people employed as here govt has only one strategy to keep people employed. If IN asks for nuclear one they have to inform now as BARC already told it will take 15 years to develop a reactor for carrier kind of burden.
2 - Just diesel subs are not enough though they are very much essential in number say 24, for which we have plan.
3 - SSBN we have with 2nd generation reactor have good acoustic design but still noisier and slower, I feel till S4* we are keeping this 2nd generation so called 100-125 mw reactors (not sure though). From S5 we would like to have 4th generation reactor and same should go for all SSN(as they need to be faster and drain lot of energy), that is the reason 3 billion dollar is the charge for coming akula(refitting 7 years, they come up with new design in this much time). I am very sure leapfrogging to 4th gen reactors is the only area where this much amount and time is getting consumed. We should not be surprised if even end paying more.
4 - Challenge is HEU?? We have 300-400 kg per year capacity now, if we have to operate 12 nuke subs then it has to be 1.2-1.5 ton per year. Who will help us here and how??

 

[Pururavas]

I hate kolkata and Bangalore class destroyers.

We need Aegis ships to counter chinese Aegis fleet of 12+6+48 type 52A,b,c and 55 destroyers

Just 1 type 55 carries 128 missiles alone !

 

[Star Wars]

I believe when comparing the Indian Navy with the PLAN, one should also take notice on how much of a trained and experienced crew you can field without having manpower issues due to the excessive number of warships which the PLAN plans to induct.

The focus on number of platforms is applicable especially to the PLAN. Even the US Navy until recently had to make a decision between deploying the minimum number of warships required, as compared to the number of warships available with a well trained and equipped crew. Its only after Jim Mattis that minimum training and readiness standards were set in training before the warship could be actively deployed. This of course lead to the reduction of ships which were available for deployment.

Compare this to what the PLAN is doing, where Navy Officers with barely 7 years of experience is being asked to commandeer Frigates and Destroyers. In other professional Navies, you become a captain of such a large ship after serving as a captain in multiple smaller vessels and also as serving as an officer in multiple areas to get the full spectrum of operational experience. The Chinese with their excessive focus on number of ships seems to be sacrificing training standards to fill in with the Manpower requirements. At the current stage and at least for the next 10 years I believe that USN will have a field day with the PLAN, Even the IN with its experience in training with multiple Navies across the world can make up for the shortage of warships against the PLAN.

 

[Austerlitz]

First of all Thanks for opening a very good thread !
1 - We will keep building one carrier always and I do not see that changing for next 30 years. The 65k ton one will be first of that class and we may go for one more, by 2050 it will keep people employed as here govt has only one strategy to keep people employed. If IN asks for nuclear one they have to inform now as BARC already told it will take 15 years to develop a reactor for carrier kind of burden.
2 - Just diesel subs are not enough though they are very much essential in number say 24, for which we have plan.
3 - SSBN we have with 2nd generation reactor have good acoustic design but still noisier and slower, I feel till S4* we are keeping this 2nd generation so called 100-125 mw reactors (not sure though). From S5 we would like to have 4th generation reactor and same should go for all SSN(as they need to be faster and drain lot of energy), that is the reason 3 billion dollar is the charge for coming akula(refitting 7 years, they come up with new design in this much time). I am very sure leapfrogging to 4th gen reactors is the only area where this much amount and time is getting consumed. We should not be surprised if even end paying more.
4 - Challenge is HEU?? We have 300-400 kg per year capacity now, if we have to operate 12 nuke subs then it has to be 1.2-1.5 ton per year. Who will help us here and how??

1.Its all well and good to say we will always build one carrier.Question is can we afford to operate more than 2 carriers now and more than 3 carriers before becoming an economic superpower?Building a carrier isn't enough,you have to afford the hugely costly air fleet that comes with it.Especially at a time when IAF is having trouble getting enough sophisticated aircraft into service thats doubtful.Also carriers are not as indispensable as they used to be and are more vulnerable now.What would i rather have - nuke carrier with 50 sophisticated fighters ,or would it be better to get 12-15 diesel submarines for the 10 billion dollars that would cost us.

2.The current navy plan of just 14 diesel submarines and total 24 submarines is very weak,considering pak itself will have 11 diesel subs.

3,4.No problems with nuke subs programmes.They are critical 6+4 model suits us fine.Russia is the only option.Maybe france if we go for them in P75I.

 

[sid4587]

1.Its all well and good to say we will always build one carrier.Question is can we afford to operate more than 2 carriers now and more than 3 carriers before becoming an economic superpower?Building a carrier isn't enough,you have to afford the hugely costly air fleet that comes with it.Especially at a time when IAF is having trouble getting enough sophisticated aircraft into service thats doubtful.Also carriers are not as indispensable as they used to be and are more vulnerable now.What would i rather have - nuke carrier with 50 sophisticated fighters ,or would it be better to get 12-15 diesel submarines for the 10 billion dollars that would cost us.

2.The current navy plan of just 14 diesel submarines and total 24 submarines is very weak,considering pak itself will have 11 diesel subs.

3,4.No problems with nuke subs programmes.They are critical 6+4 model suits us fine.Russia is the only option.Maybe france if we go for them in P75I.

- Even if we are building one carrier always we will never operate more than 2 before 2035 and more than 3 before 2050. Forget about any change in this plan, employment is major concerned in our country than strategy, though I am not sure if strategically it is not a good plan.

 

[Star Wars]

1.Its all well and good to say we will always build one carrier.Question is can we afford to operate more than 2 carriers now and more than 3 carriers before becoming an economic superpower?Building a carrier isn't enough,you have to afford the hugely costly air fleet that comes with it.Especially at a time when IAF is having trouble getting enough sophisticated aircraft into service thats doubtful.Also carriers are not as indispensable as they used to be and are more vulnerable now.What would i rather have - nuke carrier with 50 sophisticated fighters ,or would it be better to get 12-15 diesel submarines for the 10 billion dollars that would cost us.

2.The current navy plan of just 14 diesel submarines and total 24 submarines is very weak,considering pak itself will have 11 diesel subs.

3,4.No problems with nuke subs programmes.They are critical 6+4 model suits us fine.Russia is the only option.Maybe france if we go for them in P75I.

To be honest, I don't understand the need of building too many carriers. It looks good on paper, but I fail to understand the application of so many carriers. We already have an unsinkable carrier near the Malacca straights. An aircraft carrier requires a considerably large escort force, the same escort force which could be deployed elsewhere if it was not required to be part of the CBG. In the current scenario we are approaching a situation were our Naval vessels will need to be deployed in multiple areas.

- MALDEP : An IN ship is permanently sailing near the mouths of the Straits of Malacca
- NORDEP : patrolling of the North Bay of Bengal, in waters north of the Andamans and the coasts of Bangladesh and Myanmar
- ANDEP : patrolling between the North Andamans and South Nicobar
- GULFDEP : patrolling of the North Arabian Sea and the approaches to the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf
- POGDEP : anti-piracy patrolling of the Gulf of Aden, the oldest of the missions
- CENDEP : patrolling in waters south of India, off the Maldives and Sri Lanka
- IODEP : patrolling in the South Indian Ocean, off Mauritius, the Seychelles and Madagascar.

In addition to patrolling these waters, we are also required presence in Vietnam and in the south China sea. Also not to mention we will require ships to shadow Pakistani and Chinese submarines operation in the IOR. With two carriers at sea, and large contingent of surface ships employed just to defend it. Will we have the necessary number of warships for all these deployments? More than that with the sort of weapon systems available won't the CBG be more of a liability during an actual war situation when dealing with a much bigger enemy? If the Chinese are the major threat, we could quiet easily employ enough Ariel assets from Andaman. We won't need an aircraft carrier for the Pakistan theatre. We can also convert the present naval outpost in Lakshadweep into a fully-fledged operational base, with capability for power-projection, sea-denial and command of the sea, especially in relation to Pakistan. A Fully fledged Naval and airbase in the Lakshadweep Islands means we could provide tactical Ariel support to any Naval vessels in the Arabian sea. I personally believe max to max we could use two carriers simply because we would need one carrier would be required in dry dock while the other was deployed.

 

[randomradio]

Our carrier conundrum is quite interesting in itself. We are going for a 3rd carrier, and by the time it's built, we will need a 4th carrier in construction in order to replace Vikramaditya.

I personally believe max to max we could use two carriers simply because we would need one carrier would be required in dry dock while the other was deployed.

For 24/7 availability, we will need 3 carriers. 1 in dry dock, 1 moored at its base, 1 at sea.

 

[sid4587]

Our carrier conundrum is quite interesting in itself. We are going for a 3rd carrier, and by the time it's built, we will need a 4th carrier in construction in order to replace Vikramaditya.



For 24/7 availability, we will need 3 carriers. 1 in dry dock, 1 moored at its base, 1 at sea.

That's what I have been saying, not sure where they are feeling it is too much. It is JUST enough.

 

[Star Wars]

Our carrier conundrum is quite interesting in itself. We are going for a 3rd carrier, and by the time it's built, we will need a 4th carrier in construction in order to replace Vikramaditya.
For 24/7 availability, we will need 3 carriers. 1 in dry dock, 1 moored at its base, 1 at sea.

That is the problem, 3 carriers and aircrafts for these carriers means at least investing a total of $15-20 Billon. With that money you could you not only build a considerable surface and sub surface fleet. But you could also invest the money to increase the availability of ships for deployment. Your ships would also will be free to operate in offensive roles than be focused purely in Defending the carrier.

This is something that I don't understand why so many countries are focusing on carriers. I get the reason why the US is doing it. Having Super carriers with 70+ aircrafts can be a huge asset. Especially when you want to show your presence through out the world. But I just feel that, with Naval and Air bases in Gujarat, Andaman and Lakshadweep. The only place I see a carrier deployment to be useful is if a Chinese flotilla tried an incursion around Sumatra.

 

[randomradio]

That is the problem, 3 carriers and aircrafts for these carriers means at least investing a total of $15-20 Billon. With that money you could you not only build a considerable surface and sub surface fleet. But you could also invest the money to increase the availability of ships for deployment. Your ships would also will be free to operate in offensive roles than be focused purely in Defending the carrier.

With our current finances, we obviously cannot afford a 3rd carrier today. But by 2035, the navy's procurement budget alone could be as much as $15B a year, maybe even more. So you will have to consider our future resources, not current.

The navy is being realistic when they believe they can start the construction of a conventionally powered large carrier by 2025. Our economy would have almost doubled by then.

Rather than the carrier itself, I would most definitely question the rationale for 57 Rafale-M. We most definitely cannot afford it at this time. A modernised Mig-29K is far more realistic. It is now far more reliable that it used to be and advanced avionics will keep it relevant in the 2030s. This will give the IN time to plan the third carrier's air wing a bit more rationally.

This is something that I don't understand why so many countries are focusing on carriers. I get the reason why the US is doing it. Having Super carriers with 70+ aircrafts can be a huge asset. Especially when you want to show your presence through out the world. But I just feel that, with Naval and Air bases in Gujarat, Andaman and Lakshadweep. The only place I see a carrier deployment to be useful is if a Chinese flotilla tried an incursion around Sumatra.

Strictly speaking, to deal with China, all we need is 2 squadrons of FGFA, a few P-8I and a few large refuellers in A&N Islands and flying rights over Malaysia or Thailand. With its ridiculously large range, it can cover the entirety of the SCS without us requiring a carrier. The geography already works against the Chinese, while they are also contending with the US and Japan in the SCS.

But that is the air force's domain. The navy will require a carrier to match the presence of the FGFA. So you have to consider inter-services rivalry playing its part. We are already seeing that with the IAF willing to deploy MKIs on the islands again in order to push back against the IN's plan for a 3rd carrier.

The only drawback is the FGFA on the ground will be more vulnerable than a CBG. If it comes down to survivability in the end, a carrier makes more sense.

 

[Austerlitz]

What we have to decide is whether we want a 3rd CBG or build 10-12 diesel subs for that instead.I would take 2nd option.
Navy is mass building frigates and destroyers,but it is submarines that can have disproportionate effect with respect to their numbers.Particularly when operating close to friendly coasts.IN is totally neglecting diesel submarines.

 

[Notsuperstitious]

The last one makes me super mad. They were even discussing a super carrier which will cost many years capital budget and will be a huge addition to operating budget without any additional benefits that outweigh the liability of protecting it.

I mean WTF. Do the basics well before even thinking about grand luxuries.

 

[sid4587]

First of all Thanks for opening a very good thread !

4 - Challenge is HEU?? We have 300-400 kg per year capacity now, if we have to operate 12 nuke subs then it has to be 1.2-1.5 ton per year. Who will help us here and how??

I correct myself here, the capacity mentioned is of during 2009-10, I am sure we would have more by now. no confirmation from my end.

 

[sid4587]

What we have to decide is whether we want a 3rd CBG or build 10-12 diesel subs for that instead.I would take 2nd option.
Navy is mass building frigates and destroyers,but it is submarines that can have disproportionate effect with respect to their numbers.Particularly when operating close to friendly coasts.IN is totally neglecting diesel submarines.

Carrier and submarine are being built in different yards, different budget, they dont have option to choose either. They are going with both.