Indian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Corsair96]

Ok this is going to sound incredibly stupid but I dont really care. Alright here goes nothing, how bout an aircraft carrying submarine? Kind of like the japanese had with their I-400 class except bigger. I know your going to say that their would be no way to achieve the aircraft but it would take away such a heavy need for so many defenses for modern aircraft carriers. Imagine, the submarine gets within range and launches aircraft. I know this role might be of no use from cruise missiles but its just an idea.

The battleship was thought to be the main weapon of naval warfare until it got tested in battle, maybe the carriers turn has come to fall out of favor?

[Mod Edit: Read the Forum Rules before posting again. You have been warned.]

 

[swerve]

Subs with cruise missiles do everything aircraft-carrying subs could do except recce. That could be achieved with expendable UAVs, if you really think it's needed.

 

[aussienscale]

Indian RFI F35B & C

Reports today that the Indian Navy has made an RFI for the F35B & C, would be interested in opinions on whether this is a serious option for the Indian Navy and their future carriers or is this a potential ploy for a better deal from Russia ? Link for the article I found, I will also try to find some more difinative reports
Washington Opens for Indian Request for F-35 - Defense-Update

Just to ad India has made RFI's in the past with not much chance of Washington approval, this seems to be changing in view of recenct discussions and visits

 

[dragonfire]

Reports today that the Indian Navy has made an RFI for the F35B & C, would be interested in opinions on whether this is a serious option for the Indian Navy and their future carriers or is this a potential ploy for a better deal from Russia ? Link for the article I found, I will also try to find some more difinative reports
Washington Opens for Indian Request for F-35 - Defense-Update

Just to ad India has made RFI's in the past with not much chance of Washington approval, this seems to be changing in view of recenct discussions and visits

The challenge in acquiring this system is that IN has already placed an order for 45 Mig-29Ks, 29 for the INS Vikrant and 16 for the INS Vikramaditya. Then there is the commitment from the IN for the Naval Tejas LCA. So even if we talk about the F-35 getting acquired for the IN it would be limited for the future (planned) INS Vishal. Would it be wise to operate only 1 aircraft carrier with the F-35 or not would be the question.

However i would agree with you that the F-35 is getting feelers from India and LM is keen on getting India on-board as a client for its flagship fighter.

 

[T.C.P]

The IN could always keep the Mig-29K as a sore based fighter and the F-35 as carrier based or the other way around. Or maybe they would decide to take which fighter onboard depending on the mission.

 

[KiwiRob]

Agreed, I was just saying it was not far fetched. It would certainly be better value than that the old Russian carrier, and probably cheaper, but then the money has been spent.

One of the reasons why the Russian carrier isn't great value for money is due to Russian corruption, I know a supplier of alarm systems for this vessel, they quoted X and were asked by the yard purchaser to submit a bid for twice the value, this equipment was then sold to a private individual who then resold the equipment to the yard at the twice inflated price.

Deals like this have massively inflated the build price. If I was the Indians I'd have cancelled this contract years ago. It's been a gravey train for upper management at the yard.

 

[dragonfire]

The IN could always keep the Mig-29K as a sore based fighter and the F-35 as carrier based or the other way around. Or maybe they would decide to take which fighter onboard depending on the mission.

What is the value-add that an IN shore based fighter squadron have over what the IAF has ?

Apart from providing platform training not much. IAF already has Jaguars and the Su-30MKIs for the maritime role. Besides the orders for the Mig-29Ks were placed specifically for the carriers.

The question of platform (F-35C) compatibility with that of the carriers INS Vikrant and INS Vikramaditya is also there.

 

[kay_man]

The question of platform (F-35C) compatibility with that of the carriers INS Vikrant and INS Vikramaditya is also there.

India's current and near future carriers have angled deck.
F-35 like the harrier will be able to use angled flight deck, so compatibility will not be such a large problem.
the problem as mentioned in the recent news report is that India does not want to operate multiple FGFAs.
There is the PAK-FA and also the indigenous MCA

 

[aussienscale]

India's current and near future carriers have angled deck.
F-35 like the harrier will be able to use angled flight deck, so compatibility will not be such a large problem.
the problem as mentioned in the recent news report is that India does not want to operate multiple FGFAs.
There is the PAK-FA and also the indigenous MCA

All academic now judging by this article
India Rejects US F-35 JSF Offer | Air Force News at DefenseTalk

 

[A.Mookerjee]

It's not the quality of aircraft that the U S Fleet's Aircraft Carrier's fly, but the quantity, which is important. In any skirmish with an air force of a strong nation, the carrier borne fighters of the U S Fleet, will be out-numbered. Most importantly, this will make the Aircraft Carrier's vulnerable to enemy air attack. If we take the example of 'The Battle of Midway', then I do not believe, that the Japanese combat fleet could have escaped the inevitable, but if she had kept the fighters of two aircraft carriers in reserve. The Japanese Fleet could have recce-ed and attacked with two aircraft carriers, and then waited for the American attack, and defended with the other two. Four carriers were lost, I presume, of the Japanese navy.
Perhaps, the F-35's have an overwhelming advantage, in combat, but I would be careful about the U S Fleet Carriers, against a combined Naval, and air attack.

 

[A.Mookerjee]

How does the U S Navy use her aircraft carriers? By using the concept of carrier groups, I presume. The U S Navy has one carrier per group. The carrier is assisted by naval vessels, which are escorts to the carrier. Only in a large scale operation, would the carrier groups be combined. In a similar situation, India would not need three carrier groups, except in a prolonged war, with a nation who has a substantial navy. Perhaps, India would need three carrier groups, when facing a large navy, even in a war of short duration. How then, would India use her three carriers? Against ships, or against naval ports? I would say, against naval ports. The naval ports of the enemy, in this case, must be made redundant. What if the ports were extremely well guarded? What use would the aircraft carriers have then? I think a carrier group or groups, against a similar enemy force, is an outdated concept.

 

[Blas de Lezo]

AERO INDIA: Eurofighter reveals offer to produce navalised Typhoon

I never thought there was the remotest possibility of seeing a navalised typhoon but,….. it seems to be a credible source, I did not want to post just one line and a link but the news is such a surprise for me!
I guess the F-35 issues might have something to do with this offer.

Regards.

 

[dragonfire]

How does the U S Navy use her aircraft carriers? By using the concept of carrier groups, I presume. The U S Navy has one carrier per group. The carrier is assisted by naval vessels, which are escorts to the carrier. Only in a large scale operation, would the carrier groups be combined. In a similar situation, India would not need three carrier groups, except in a prolonged war, with a nation who has a substantial navy. Perhaps, India would need three carrier groups, when facing a large navy, even in a war of short duration. How then, would India use her three carriers? Against ships, or against naval ports? I would say, against naval ports. The naval ports of the enemy, in this case, must be made redundant. What if the ports were extremely well guarded? What use would the aircraft carriers have then? I think a carrier group or groups, against a similar enemy force, is an outdated concept.

3 Active Carrier groups could allow Force Projection off territorial / littoral /neighbouring waters. But 3 carrier battle groups is a lot lot of assets. 3 Carriers would allow 2 Active Battle Groups though even if a carrier is under refit etc and that seems to be the plan. But i guess 3 is better than 2

The plans are afoot for the 3 carriers the third one's design yet to be finalised and various options are being evaluated. It is going to bring a smile to all our faces to see 3 carriers together all significantly different from each other

 

[dragonfire]

AERO INDIA: Eurofighter reveals offer to produce navalised Typhoon

I never thought there was the remotest possibility of seeing a navalised typhoon but,….. it seems to be a credible source, I did not want to post just one line and a link but the news is such a surprise for me!
I guess the F-35 issues might have something to do with this offer.

Regards.

The offer is old IIRC. Similarly a Sea-Gripen is also on offer apart from the currently existing Naval Rafale and the F-18 SHornet. The MMRCA contenders try to showcase their products as the best option. Since F-16 is not a naval fighter they offered the F-35C

 

[shag]

How does the U S Navy use her aircraft carriers? By using the concept of carrier groups, I presume. The U S Navy has one carrier per group. The carrier is assisted by naval vessels, which are escorts to the carrier. Only in a large scale operation, would the carrier groups be combined. In a similar situation, India would not need three carrier groups, except in a prolonged war, with a nation who has a substantial navy. Perhaps, India would need three carrier groups, when facing a large navy, even in a war of short duration. How then, would India use her three carriers? Against ships, or against naval ports? I would say, against naval ports. The naval ports of the enemy, in this case, must be made redundant. What if the ports were extremely well guarded? What use would the aircraft carriers have then? I think a carrier group or groups, against a similar enemy force, is an outdated concept.

I must admit my undestanding of carrier naval ops is limited. But I will try to put in what I understand. Experts please feel free to correct me.

The point to note when comparing carrier based air force with shore based air force is that both Carriers and inidividual shore based air bases have restrictions on the number and bulk of aircraft that they can field, This means that the amount of air power a large nation can fieldin any region (along its shore in this case) is limited not just by the total number of aircraft in its inventory by its nearby airbase and logistics infrastructure. Its not as simple, bringing an entire nation's airforce to bear on a single location especially for larger countries(Which happen to be the ones with large airforces too.)
This is also explained using what is called the density of air operations and the density of air operations is limited by the number, capacity and even the altitude of the airbases in the region. Thats the true power of a carrier in force projection roles. It provides air power at moment and location of choice.

I will skip over the advantages offered by the surprise factor a carrier attack can bring due to flexiblity of choosing the engagement region. Other roles for carrier include battlegroup protection and area sanitisation in places far away for shore based airforce especially chokepoints, which is very effective against a enemy not equipped with a carrier.

Much hype has been made of the carrier's vulnerablity against a large airforce. Note that Carrier locations are always kept a secret in a war and besides that a carrier can move several nautical miles in a day, making pin-pointing of its location accurately at any time extremly difficult.
So to answer your question, no a large shore based air force doesn't make the carrier useless.

 

[swerve]

... a carrier can move several nautical miles in a day, ...

I suspect there's something missing there, as I reckon a carrier can move several nautical miles in 15 minutes, not a day.

 

[gf0012-aust]

How does the U S Navy use her aircraft carriers? By using the concept of carrier groups, I presume. The U S Navy has one carrier per group. The carrier is assisted by naval vessels, which are escorts to the carrier. Only in a large scale operation, would the carrier groups be combined.

Combined groups become a Task Force. Eg when the USN merged 4 carrier groups in the sth china sea a few months back they combined into a Task Force

In a similar situation, India would not need three carrier groups, except in a prolonged war, with a nation who has a substantial navy. Perhaps, India would need three carrier groups, when facing a large navy, even in a war of short duration. How then, would India use her three carriers? Against ships, or against naval ports? I would say, against naval ports. The naval ports of the enemy, in this case, must be made redundant. What if the ports were extremely well guarded? What use would the aircraft carriers have then? I think a carrier group or groups, against a similar enemy force, is an outdated concept.

You're misunderstanding some of the basic advantages of a Task Force.

The easiest way to lock up a port is via submarines. It has an immediate impact and causes the "red" team to either stay at home or commit vital assets to hunt down and track/kill those subs. These are vital assets that would be needed elsewhere.

Carriers are not just about sea denial, they are about projection, persistence and a willingness to dictate engagement by proxy.

Land based air is no guarantee of making a carrier group - let alone a task force redundnant.

ie subs and battlegroups/task forces are sympathetic companion systems.

stating that CBG's are outdated against land based air ignores too many of the real world variables in play.

 

[shag]

I suspect there's something missing there, as I reckon a carrier can move several nautical miles in 15 minutes, not a day.

oops, yeah I meant to add something there. I can walk a several nautical miles a day

 

[aaaditya]

3 Active Carrier groups could allow Force Projection off territorial / littoral /neighbouring waters. But 3 carrier battle groups is a lot lot of assets. 3 Carriers would allow 2 Active Battle Groups though even if a carrier is under refit etc and that seems to be the plan. But i guess 3 is better than 2

The plans are afoot for the 3 carriers the third one's design yet to be finalised and various options are being evaluated. It is going to bring a smile to all our faces to see 3 carriers together all significantly different from each other

i believe the third carrier will be of the same design as the current aircraft carrier under construction ,may be slightly larger with a better sensor and weapons fit.

 

[dragonfire]

i believe the third carrier will be of the same design as the current aircraft carrier under construction ,may be slightly larger with a better sensor and weapons fit.

The third carrier being planned will have at-least 50% more displacement than the carrier under construction in Kochi, also the design could be a conventionally powered CATOBAR than the STOBAR design for the current under construction vessel. The IN has been generating info through RFIs issued for carrier based aircraft as well as launch systems. Interest has also been shared for carrier based AWACS platforms. The new design will be larger, will be able to have a higher no of fighters / fighter mix deployed and may also be able to deploy fixed wing AWACS platforms. So there are significant capability differences being planned. If it works out then there were even discussions about a 3rd Carrier which would be similar in design to the second one, this however is not confirmed as it way ahead in the future.