INS Vikrant (IAC1) & INS Vikramaditya - News & Discussions

GuardianRED

Call Sign "RED"
Dec 2, 2017
510
406
I think it is complete and looks much better design compared to Vikramaditya.

The system integration is taking too much of the time.
Agree with both statements, meant that the island isn't complete w.r.t the center mast as in the RAN-40L that @Parthu mentioned
 

Angel Eyes

Active member
Dec 1, 2017
199
116
Top of the world
The article seems tilted towards an argument against India having any or additional AC. He actually quotes a Chinese to underpin his argument.
We could also use our carriers from standoff ranges to support our missile boats destroying Karachi Harbor or our Sub Hunter ships with organic air power. A carrier can be used in several ways....
 

_Anonymous_

Senior Member
Dec 4, 2017
14,985
10,859
Mumbai
We could also use our carriers from standoff ranges to support our missile boats destroying Karachi Harbor or our Sub Hunter ships with organic air power. A carrier can be used in several ways....
As far as I know, any such operation to target Karachi or other coastal areas of interest in Pakistan will require an Armada of Destroyers, Frigates, Anti Sub Corvettes, Missile boats, Subs with the air complement being provided by IAF. There's no role for an AC.But that's only as far as I know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paro

advaidhya

Member
Aug 2, 2018
325
81
India
As far as I know, any such operation to target Karachi or other coastal areas of interest in Pakistan will require an Armada of Destroyers, Frigates, Anti Sub Corvettes, Missile boats, Subs with the air complement being provided by IAF. There's no role for an AC.But that's only as far as I know.
No one uses Aircraft carriers alone. But the essence of air power is very important to win any warfare. Things become 10 times easier to fight naval battles with the help of airpower than not. Expecting planes to travel to distant areas in sea from mainland is foolish due to fuel restraint. Hence one needs air craft carriers
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Angel Eyes

_Anonymous_

Senior Member
Dec 4, 2017
14,985
10,859
Mumbai
No one uses Aircraft carriers alone. But the essence of air power is very important to win any warfare. Things become 10 times easier to fight naval battles with the help of airpower than not. Expecting planes to travel to distant areas in sea from mainland is foolish due to fuel restraint. Hence one needs air craft carriers
Say, what happened to your previous avatars - Kshitij Sharma & Pachawry?
 

GuardianRED

Call Sign "RED"
Dec 2, 2017
510
406
44965574_1222337891248129_1747957144356913152_o.jpg


2018 Googe Earth
 

Sancho

Well-Known member
Oct 13, 2018
645
321
Na
Even if the aircraft carriers are only defending themselves, they will mobilize Pakistani resources for this, and this will facilitate the battle for the IAF.

That could be achieved from naval land bases too.
There is no case for carriers, when it comes to Pakistan, IN can do the same or more, with their Frigate/Destroyer/Sub fleet and would be more efficient.
The carriers only play a role to project power into the IOR, but even here, the lack of enemy countries, makes the usefulness questionable.
Anything beyond that (sending carriers to China), is not feasible without USN and Japanese navy support, because Indian carriers neither have the capability to fight China, nor has IN the logistics to support the CBG in long duration operations, beyond the IOR.

As much as I would love to see an Indian catobar carrier again, but, getting more capable aircrafts for the available carriers + proper submarine fleet, would be more useful against China.
 

Sancho

Well-Known member
Oct 13, 2018
645
321
Na
As far as I know, any such operation to target Karachi or other coastal areas of interest in Pakistan will require an Armada of Destroyers, Frigates, Anti Sub Corvettes, Missile boats, Subs with the air complement being provided by IAF. There's no role for an AC.But that's only as far as I know.

Correct on the carriers, but we don't need an armada =>

“The Karachi strike group consisted of two Petyas and four missile boats armed with four missiles each. One of the four boats was to remain on patrol off Dwarka in order to provide cover for the force on its way back. The Petyas were intended to provide communication and control and, with their better radar, give indication of suitable targets. In the event of an emergency, they could take a boat in tow and, if necessary give fuel.

http://www.indiandefencereview.com/interviews/1971-war-the-first-missile-attack-on-karachi/


The aim was to close in without being detected and strike from distance. The modern equivalent to that, would be INs SSN and Kilo class SSKs, with Klub land attack missiles.
A large surface fleet would be detected easily and the Mig 29Ks have A2G capabilities, it would be easier to use IAF fighters with tanker and AWACS support, for air strikes.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: _Anonymous_

Angel Eyes

Active member
Dec 1, 2017
199
116
Top of the world
Correct on the carriers, but we don't need an armada =>



1971 War: The First Missile Attack on Karachi - Indian Defence Review


The aim was to close in without being detected and strike from distance. The modern equivalent to that, would be INs SSN and Kilo class SSKs, with Klub land attack missiles.
A large surface fleet would be detected easily and the Mig 29Ks have A2G capabilities, it would be easier to use IAF fighters with tanker and AWACS support, for air strikes.
We can use our carriers to provide organic air support to these missile boats against Pakistani Assets, while our submarines will be hunting Chinese Ships in a two front war scenario.
 

Sancho

Well-Known member
Oct 13, 2018
645
321
Na
We can use our carriers to provide organic air support

Which would make sense of course, if we would talk about a country that is further away from India, but that's not the case. We probably have IAF air bases closer to Karachi, than an IN could get its carrier. Not to mention that IAF has the better force multipliers, to support such operations.
 

Himanshu

Senior member
Dec 3, 2017
912
1,504
New Delhi
indopacfront.blogspot.com
The article seems tilted towards an argument against India having any or additional AC. He actually quotes a Chinese to underpin his argument.

Still i agree we don't need the 3rd AC anymore. With India upgrading facilities at Lakshadweep and A&N islands, signing agreements with Oman, US, France and Japan etc. Also France is sending their AC to Indian Ocean next year, i don't see the need anymore.

We could also use our carriers from standoff ranges to support our missile boats destroying Karachi Harbor or our Sub Hunter ships with organic air power. A carrier can be used in several ways....

Pak is our neighbour so i don't think AC are needed for such support when PN is no match. Its better be used to keep in check oil transit routes around gulf countries to cut off pak's & China's and keep our's in check.
 

halloweene

Well-Known member
Dec 1, 2017
318
368
Paris
French MoD Florence Parly recently announced the start of studies for future french carrier. If you guys have any accointance with politics, it is exactly the time to propose co-studies. 3 main questions : embarked aviation (types) , power (nuke or diesel), Emals or vapor. Qell... At least i India is interested...
 
  • Agree
Reactions: R!cK