A pivotal moment for the Indian Navy -Induction of the newest aircraft carrier

[Blademaster]

You need a minimum of 3 carriers to have a carrier on station year round.

[zraver]

Colonel, if we're counting maritime strike aircraft, then India uses the SPECAT Jaguar for that role.

There is really nothing Pakistan or China can throw at India that warrants having 3 aircraft carriers. The Indian carriers serve a larger role than area denial. They are primarily for force projection, and secondarily for gaining the technological and operational capability on which to expand on in the future. This is somewhat akin to India's SSBNs; it won't be arming those subs with nuke-tipped missiles anytime soon, but simply designing, building and operating them helps in expanding your knowledge base and reduces the technological gap with others.

India's carriers suck for force projection against any modern foe. Harriers are dead meant in a BVR environment and the Mig-29's are so short ranged in order to get off the deck without a catapult as to be little better. Try and use those barely armed and fueled Mig-29's against land based Amraam equipped F-16's supported by E-2 Hawkeyes and you're asking to be crushed. The harriers don't even have the slim chance the Fulcrums have. So how exactly are you going to project force?

[Tronic]

You need a minimum of 3 carriers to have a carrier on station year round.

These are brand new carriers (IAC-1 and IAC-2), Blade. 50 years old INS Viraat usually takes approximately 2-4 months to refit, unless it's a major mid-life upgrade. Even if you give the same time as the Viraat to refit IACs, it is still, one carrier in the docks, and 2 at sea.

Though ofcourse, we don't yet know how reliable Vikramiditya will be.

[Tronic]

India's carriers suck for force projection against any modern foe. Harriers are dead meant in a BVR environment and the Mig-29's are so short ranged in order to get off the deck without a catapult as to be little better. Try and use those barely armed and fueled Mig-29's against land based Amraam equipped F-16's supported by E-2 Hawkeyes and you're asking to be crushed. The harriers don't even have the slim chance the Fulcrums have. So how exactly are you going to project force?

So which hypothetical 'modern foe' is this you are having them up against?

I'm thinking armed interventions, a la Operation Cactus.

[zraver]

So which hypothetical 'modern foe' is this you are having them up against?

I'm thinking armed interventions, a la Operation Cactus.

If the IN tries to use its migs to blockade Karachi its begging to have its carrier sunk. The IN with a carrier based force adds no real capability against Pakistan or China.

[Tronic]

If the IN tries to use its migs to blockade Karachi its begging to have its carrier sunk.

I'm sure the war planners are more astute than that. Last time the PN went hunting for an Indian carrier, they were deceived into believing the carrier was where it wasn't, and found their flagship PNS Ghazi/ex-USS Diablo at the bottom of the sea. The gap between the capabilities of the two navies has only grown from then onwards.

The IN with a carrier based force adds no real capability against Pakistan or China.

Conventionally speaking, Pakistan is badly outnumbered and outgunned. A carrier group adds to their woes. They have to fight through an Indian naval screen to search and hit an aircraft carrier, which they are not even sure is there in the first place. (Naval air assets can be launched from land, if you want to play the deception game again).

China is far off until IN and/or PLN develop a blue water capability.

So to reiterate my earlier point, Indian carriers are primarily for force projection in the IOR.

[zraver]

I'm sure the war planners are more astute than that. Last time the PN went hunting for an Indian carrier, they were deceived into believing the carrier was where it wasn't, and found their flagship PNS Ghazi/ex-USS Diablo at the bottom of the sea. The gap between the capabilities of the two navies has only grown from then onwards.

The gap is not near so great as you think. The E-2 hawkeye can see farther than an armed Mig-29K can fly from a carrier.

Conventionally speaking, Pakistan is badly outnumbered and outgunned. A carrier group adds to their woes. They have to fight through an Indian naval screen to search and hit an aircraft carrier, which they are not even sure is there in the first place. (Naval air assets can be launched from land, if you want to play the deception game again).

The carrier is not a major threat, to reach Karachi it almost has to be in sight of land. Well within range fully armed PAF fighters and subs guided by Chinese supplied sat images...

China is far off until IN and/or PLN develop a blue water capability.

The Chinese will rarely be more than 100 or so vertical miles away from the Indian carrier... Its not the 1970's anymore. India's ability to hide a carrier in the most much predictable shipping patterns of the IOR is pretty constrained given the advances in remote sensing. Besides the PAF, the PN also has what 5 AIP equipped subs at least 3 of which can fire sub-launched anti-shipping missiles.

In additon, Pakistan has proven she can survive a battlefield defeat. India loses her nice shiny carrier, paid for on the backs of so many children growing up in poverty and her government will topple. Heads will roll, the fear of that is going to constrain the carriers usage. Once India gets her hands on the ship and sees just how pathetically short-legged and under-armed a Mig-29 off a ski ramp really is....

For real power projection against a technologically equal foe you need catapult launched aircraft. Even then the land based air frame has certain inherent advantages

So to reiterate my earlier point, Indian carriers are primarily for force projection in the IOR.

Flag waving, not power projection. Not unless India plans on beating up on Somali pirates anyway...

[lemontree]

Per Russian, Indian and Chinese service, the KILOs saw more dock time than patrol time. I know the Chinese were so frustrated that they tried to get German batteries to replace the Russian batteries. I think the deal fell through because the Chinese would have to pay more for German batteries than what the sub was worth.

Got your point sir, thanks.

[lemontree]

If the IN tries to use its migs to blockade Karachi its begging to have its carrier sunk.

India does not need a carrier to blockade Karachi.

The IN with a carrier based force adds no real capability against Pakistan or China.

The carrier is certainly not a requirement against Pakistan, but against China it would matter (but not for targets near the the mainland).
It would be foolish to take the carrier near the mainland.

The carrier is a weapon to be used when the enemy has to stretch his sea legs and will be under the same constraints as ones own naval forces for offensive air support.

[zraver]

India does not need a carrier to blockade Karachi.

I agree, but Karachi is the most likely place for it to see action.

The carrier is certainly not a requirement against Pakistan, but against China it would matter (but not for targets near the the mainland).
It would be foolish to take the carrier near the mainland.

Again I agree, the Mig-29K is a POS when launched from a ski-ramp, little better than the 70's era F-5 freedom fighters operated by Iran.

The carrier is a weapon to be used when the enemy has to stretch his sea legs and will be under the same constraints as ones own naval forces for offensive air support.

If you were talking cat launched birds I would agree. However with the limits placed on ski-jump launched aircraft vs the capabilities of modern SAM's I'm not so sure. India may well have wasted billions on a platform that has no real capability if an honest for goodness shooting war develops. The SU-30MKI, Smerch, Arjun, all have obvious strategic, operational and tactical functions. Those obvious uses are missing for a ski-jump carrier against a modern foe.

[Firestorm]

The gap is not near so great as you think. The E-2 hawkeye can see farther than an armed Mig-29K can fly from a carrier.

When did the PN buy the Hawkeye? Are you talking about the Erieye that the PAF operates, or do you mean to say that the USN will provide Hawkeye cover to the PN in case of an Indo-Pak war?

[lemontree]

The gap is not near so great as you think. The E-2 hawkeye can see farther than an armed Mig-29K can fly from a carrier.

Deeper into sea and away from mainland, the PN E-2 will mean nothing.

My point is that the carrier is a platform to increase area domination over the sea that is away from own mainland. India does not intend it to be a platform to be used against Pakistan or China only.

[zraver]

When did the PN buy the Hawkeye? Are you talking about the Erieye that the PAF operates, or do you mean to say that the USN will provide Hawkeye cover to the PN in case of an Indo-Pak war?

I really thought the PAF had the E-2... Mea culpa. I guess they went with the Saab Erieye. Same basic principles apply.

Absolute NO on the US providing cover...

[zraver]

Deeper into sea and away from mainland, the PN E-2 will mean nothing.

My point is that the carrier is a platform to increase area domination over the sea that is away from own mainland. India does not intend it to be a platform to be used against Pakistan or China only.

Sir, I think you will find that the Mig-29K when launched from a ski-jump is only good for wasting Indian money. It has a flight time measured in minutes so a near useless combat radius and carries almost no weapons.

[winton]

If it was being operated and maintained by Russians, I'd have my doubts as well. Who knows, she could blow sky-high from a defective engineering plant. But I'm optimistic that the Indian Navy will turn her into first-class fighting ship.

How are the indians any better at maintenance than the russians? Its important to keep score of days free of incidents as a measure of how well a navy maintains their ship and the INs record isnt so flash at the moment.

They let one explosion destroy almost an entire fleet.