IAC-2 Future Aircraft Carrier Project - News & Discussions

[smestarz]

Firstly you see which countries actually need a carrier.
In my view a country which has far lying regions that are far away from their "motherland" need power projection tools such as carrier
If you see how the need for the carrier came about .. During WW2 the most powerful ships were the Battleships like Hood, Prince of Wales and the American "State" class ships and the japanese battle ships. The limitation of this ship was the best weapon, The GUN., Though it had a long range (till say 40 kms) there were a lot of issue. Firstly the guns were not accurate and it was difficult to get the bearing also needed someone experienced to determine the accuracy based on earlier fired shells. Now the carrier based planes changed that, firstly the range range of these planes was few hundred kms,. so they could hit a target at much further distance with better accuracy (if the pilots are well trained) with no risk to themselves from the enemy battleship. The battleship was in a way "out ranged" In case of pearl harbour, the Japanese could hit the US Fleet but the US fleet could not hit the japanese ships that time. simply because they were well out of range.

After that during some of the battles, the US and the british lost a few carriers to submarine action, and that changed the mindset and since then carriers could not be independent, but had to travel in group with screen of submarines and destroyers sanitising the area

Few of the rules I might add for why a country should go for carriers would be
a) The country should have very very strong economy like USA.. not fragile economy like China.
b) You should have the need to project power well beyond 1000 kms from your land base.. so for us if we want to project power in Africa or say Indonesia or in South America or Australia OR have a distant territory which is under threat of foreign invasion and hence adding the carrier adds to defence dynamics of that territory.. So in this case Reunion island, or Falkland islands qualify, but Gibraltar and Malta do not really qualify as of now.
c) The quality and nos of the aerial fleet that the enemy can bring in to bear for the action is much lower than what aerial fleet you can bring in to bear on them. Thus Carrier attack against Pakistan might not really fit, but maybe against some targets in somalia etc yes. Else if its against Pakistan than should involve maybe an alliance where its surrounded from all sides like say Iran, Afghanistan, and maybe USA also, then it might make sense . So even if using say Rafale M against Pakistan might still be a weakness where the enemy planes can in theory follow the rafales to the carrier and attempt to strike it down with bigger force.

The above are some of the points that I thought. On other hand due to various developments the carriers are able to carry planes much heavier and much capable and also more expensive. due to development in chemistry and electronics, now missiles like Tomahawk can fly long range and hit target more accurately.

So, how would I go about it, Since we have developed and produced carriers thats OK, but what I might plan is
1. Using long range reconiassance and AEW planes like P-8I or long range unmanned drones to scan and detect any threats, I might even suggest underwater drones. which are dropped just outside the maritine water of the enemy and which transmits reports as and when required and not transmit when the enemy is located near.
2. Develop naval air bases which also flies armed reconaissance using long range planes like Su-30 MKI or Su-34 or Tu-22M (just my view) these planes have long range and can project power using shore based assets.
3. Develop ANI further to make it lynchpin of Indian navy, make it perhaps the strongest naval carrier type pill box, where it can allow to take off and land long range planes and fighters making it like the ROCK.
4. Develop long range drones both HALE and MALE (lightly armed with say one ASM/ASH and two A2A, just in case) to reconaissance well past our maritime border. Thus P-8 I is the top "predator" and these drones sweep the area with random directions so as to not make the route predictable.
5.Develop/buy and produce long range amphibious AEW&C plane using platform like the japanese ShinMaywa US-2 and using our own developed AESA radar which is on our own AEW platform and few other sensors to assist in detection of submarines etc. This can be our own take on US navys E-2D, they have carrier so they need a carrier based plane to do it, but we not having carrier based AEW can use this solution to match our requirement, and since its amphibian, it can return back to land base or be refueled at sea by co-ordinating with our naval ships to increase its range

6. Develop heavily armed corvettes and frigates which have say
1-2 X CIWS like KASHTAN (gun missile combo)
1 X 100 mm gun,
1 launcher X Anti Submarine rockets,
2 X long range torpedo tubes (optional) or 4 X Brahmo
8-12 X long range Surface to surface missiles like Prahar.

Hope its not too heavy

I think the era of carrier is gone, it is now the era of smaller but heavily armed vessels that can take out targets from stand off distance using data from either AEW plane or a Drone plane or combination there off, there would not be the need to invest and risk and expensive asset like Aircraft carrier unless we wish to project power in Africa or to take over some small but distant land and we need to protect it at all costs.

That will work only for a few years, probably a decade. I was referring to what China can do in the next 15 years, not what they can do after 15 years.

My idea was to delay the procurement of the MRCBF, or just buy upgraded Mig-29s for now, and then go for a MII program for Rafale-M after IA's and IAF's needs are met first. Until then, with the combination of Brahmos-M and the short distance towards all the bases within IOR, we will be able to deny any adversary a safe zone with Mig-29s alone.

The MRCBF for 57 jets is expected to cost $15B. So I hoped the navy would buy Mig-29s instead and surrender the rest for the IAF's or IA's modernization. The money could pay for 36 more Rafales, 6 A330s for the IAF along with the 1.3 million new rifles and 300,000 BPJs that the IA needs. All this if we delay procuring Rafale-M by only a few years, three years at best. The reason I say this is because the Chinese are not yet confident enough to operate in the numbers necessary to threaten the IN for now. But it looks like the IN wants to blow it all on 57 Rafales right away. After 2030 or so, we will most definitely need supercarriers.

I think the IN and IAF are pushing for 57 Rafale-Ms so that Dassault can start MII along with 36 more Rafales. Once that's done, it will become impossible for GoI to say no to more Rafales for the IAF because we will already have a MII program running.

Supercarriers are better than islands.



We don't need to wait for our economy to rise up to 10T for us to be able to counter China. What we need is 9-10% GDP growth. We get to that, our defence budget will grow at 14% every year. With the combination of higher budget and faster indigenization, we will be able to spend enough money every year to counter China.

If we manage to get to this level by 2020 and sustain it until 2030, our defence budget will be massive. More than $200B a year in 2030, with most of it being used up on capital expenditure.

We are talking about revenue growth, not even GDP, because that's where our defence budget comes from. And our tax revenue increased by 22% last year. And this figure will continue improving as we get out of the slump.

 

[Paro]

If ruling the IOR is our goal for next two decades how about go for a subsurface fleet combined with a under water detection system like sosus and a robust satellite system. We could integrate our own already existing missile systems with the above and make new outposts to launch such missiles for fraction of a cost than maintaining the three cvs. This might not be a permanent solution but a temporary one for next 2 decades until we fill the gaps with the airforce and army

 

[Notsuperstitious]

We are doing exceedingly well for the kind of money we have. Had the navy been as import hungry as the IAF, then we would have been in a lot more trouble.

I disagree sir. We have a distinct lack of clarity of vision and what we have achieved with our money is pretty poor, NOT good.

And this is for the navy, which has done way better than air force and army. As someone who has many friends from high ranking army, navy AF families, let me tell u just wearing a uniform and acquiring the impressive mannerism does not make u competent or clean. Probably just gives one that extra bit of protection is all.

 

[randomradio]

Firstly you see which countries actually need a carrier.
In my view a country which has far lying regions that are far away from their "motherland" need power projection tools such as carrier
If you see how the need for the carrier came about .. During WW2 the most powerful ships were the Battleships like Hood, Prince of Wales and the American "State" class ships and the japanese battle ships. The limitation of this ship was the best weapon, The GUN., Though it had a long range (till say 40 kms) there were a lot of issue. Firstly the guns were not accurate and it was difficult to get the bearing also needed someone experienced to determine the accuracy based on earlier fired shells. Now the carrier based planes changed that, firstly the range range of these planes was few hundred kms,. so they could hit a target at much further distance with better accuracy (if the pilots are well trained) with no risk to themselves from the enemy battleship. The battleship was in a way "out ranged" In case of pearl harbour, the Japanese could hit the US Fleet but the US fleet could not hit the japanese ships that time. simply because they were well out of range.

After that during some of the battles, the US and the british lost a few carriers to submarine action, and that changed the mindset and since then carriers could not be independent, but had to travel in group with screen of submarines and destroyers sanitising the area

Few of the rules I might add for why a country should go for carriers would be
a) The country should have very very strong economy like USA.. not fragile economy like China.
b) You should have the need to project power well beyond 1000 kms from your land base.. so for us if we want to project power in Africa or say Indonesia or in South America or Australia OR have a distant territory which is under threat of foreign invasion and hence adding the carrier adds to defence dynamics of that territory.. So in this case Reunion island, or Falkland islands qualify, but Gibraltar and Malta do not really qualify as of now.
c) The quality and nos of the aerial fleet that the enemy can bring in to bear for the action is much lower than what aerial fleet you can bring in to bear on them. Thus Carrier attack against Pakistan might not really fit, but maybe against some targets in somalia etc yes. Else if its against Pakistan than should involve maybe an alliance where its surrounded from all sides like say Iran, Afghanistan, and maybe USA also, then it might make sense . So even if using say Rafale M against Pakistan might still be a weakness where the enemy planes can in theory follow the rafales to the carrier and attempt to strike it down with bigger force.

The above are some of the points that I thought. On other hand due to various developments the carriers are able to carry planes much heavier and much capable and also more expensive. due to development in chemistry and electronics, now missiles like Tomahawk can fly long range and hit target more accurately.

So, how would I go about it, Since we have developed and produced carriers thats OK, but what I might plan is
1. Using long range reconiassance and AEW planes like P-8I or long range unmanned drones to scan and detect any threats, I might even suggest underwater drones. which are dropped just outside the maritine water of the enemy and which transmits reports as and when required and not transmit when the enemy is located near.
2. Develop naval air bases which also flies armed reconaissance using long range planes like Su-30 MKI or Su-34 or Tu-22M (just my view) these planes have long range and can project power using shore based assets.
3. Develop ANI further to make it lynchpin of Indian navy, make it perhaps the strongest naval carrier type pill box, where it can allow to take off and land long range planes and fighters making it like the ROCK.
4. Develop long range drones both HALE and MALE (lightly armed with say one ASM/ASH and two A2A, just in case) to reconaissance well past our maritime border. Thus P-8 I is the top "predator" and these drones sweep the area with random directions so as to not make the route predictable.
5.Develop/buy and produce long range amphibious AEW&C plane using platform like the japanese ShinMaywa US-2 and using our own developed AESA radar which is on our own AEW platform and few other sensors to assist in detection of submarines etc. This can be our own take on US navys E-2D, they have carrier so they need a carrier based plane to do it, but we not having carrier based AEW can use this solution to match our requirement, and since its amphibian, it can return back to land base or be refueled at sea by co-ordinating with our naval ships to increase its range

6. Develop heavily armed corvettes and frigates which have say
1-2 X CIWS like KASHTAN (gun missile combo)
1 X 100 mm gun,
1 launcher X Anti Submarine rockets,
2 X long range torpedo tubes (optional) or 4 X Brahmo
8-12 X long range Surface to surface missiles like Prahar.

Hope its not too heavy

I think the era of carrier is gone, it is now the era of smaller but heavily armed vessels that can take out targets from stand off distance using data from either AEW plane or a Drone plane or combination there off, there would not be the need to invest and risk and expensive asset like Aircraft carrier unless we wish to project power in Africa or to take over some small but distant land and we need to protect it at all costs.

The only time an aircraft carrier becomes obsolete is when aircraft become obsolete. And that's not happening anytime soon.

 

[randomradio]

I disagree sir. We have a distinct lack of clarity of vision and what we have achieved with our money is pretty poor, NOT good.

And this is for the navy, which has done way better than air force and army. As someone who has many friends from high ranking army, navy AF families, let me tell u just wearing a uniform and acquiring the impressive mannerism does not make u competent or clean. Probably just gives one that extra bit of protection is all.

Five years ago I would have agreed. Not today.

 

[Notsuperstitious]

@Paro @smestarz thank god atleast someone understands we are not the USN or PLAN and that we should develop our own lateral strategies to achieve deterrence.

 

[randomradio]

@Paro @smestarz thank god atleast someone understands we are not the USN or PLAN and that we should develop our own lateral strategies to achieve deterrence.

Very bad idea. There are no "lateral strategies". You need carriers if you want to go on major offensives, or else you can only be a littoral navy. IN identified this decades ago, that's why we have always operated carriers. Without carriers, you can only be a second rung navy.

We are no different from the USN and PLAN. IN will be a 200-ship navy by 2027, and even bigger after that. That's pretty much right up there with the USN and PLAN.

 

[Notsuperstitious]

Very bad idea. There are no "lateral strategies". You need carriers if you want to go on major offensives, or else you can only be a littoral navy. IN identified this decades ago, that's why we have always operated carriers. Without carriers, you can only be a second rung navy.

We are no different from the USN and PLAN. IN will be a 200-ship navy by 2027, and even bigger after that. That's pretty much right up there with the USN and PLAN.

Major offensive? Against who? Rather in which waters that are not already served by land based air assets? Compare that, for priorities, our ASW - offensive and defensive capabilities - pathetic to say the least. And then spending 10 plus billion on a floating airfield when even our land based air assets are in severe short supply.

More sensors of all types, more subs, p8is, anti sub helis, refuellers, long range anti shipping air assets - thats money better spent.

Secondly, 200 ships maybe, but how many more times frontline naval and air assets will china have at the same time?

 

[randomradio]

Major offensive? Against who? Rather in which waters that are not already served by land based air assets? Compare that, for priorities, our ASW - offensive and defensive capabilities - pathetic to say the least. And then spending 10 plus billion on a floating airfield when even our land based air assets are in severe short supply.

More sensors of all types, more subs, p8is, anti sub helis, refuellers, long range anti shipping air assets - thats money better spent.

In a naval war, land bases are extremely vulnerable, Pearl Harbor. So you will need ships to counter other ships, Battle of Midway. And because of fighter aircraft, carriers have the longest and most effective reach. Also our mainland is so far away from the chokepoints that only FGFA will be able to operate at that distance, and not effectively enough. All other aircraft won't.

P8Is, helis, refuelers are only support platforms. What we need is offensive platforms, that's fighter aircraft, destroyers, subs etc. And these operate best within a CBG. P-8I alone can't do anything on its own if it is not escorted or is not operating over our own ships.

For example, a lone destroyer or even 10 destroyers cannot see beyond a few dozen kilometers, whereas a carrier, because of aircraft, will have its first line of defence 500Km away from the center. A CBG will be spread out in a radius of 300Km, will have aircraft 400-500Km away from the ships and will be able to see and strike targets at least 1000Km away.

If we are to fight in the SCS or the Pacific, we will definitely need carriers. If we don't, then the Chinese will bring the fight to us, where they will pound us with missiles from all directions, that's the last thing we need.

Our land bases are fine for now, but after 2030, it won't be enough to stop the Chinese.

Secondly, 200 ships maybe, but how many more times frontline naval and air assets will china have at the same time?

By 2027, we will have 200 ships, China will have 400 ships. But by 2037, we could be on par, minus carriers, which we need to be on par with by 2047. They will have many carriers by 2037. They will have to contend with the Americans and Japanese, so we are in a much more comfortable position for sometime. That's why we can delay our carrier acquisition program by a few years, but we can't abandon it.

But if we want to start operating supercarriers in 2040, we should start working on it now. So we will need to start designing and building reactors, new carrier aircraft, aircraft launch and recovery systems, ship defences etc. IN's immediate wishlist is a 3 carrier force, which will double to 6 carriers after 2040.

After 2030, the top three navies will be PLAN, USN and IN. The fourth biggest, probably the Russians, will likely be less than half as big as the IN. So we have a reason to operate a lot of carriers in the long run.

Whatever that you say needs fixing will have to be fixed over the next 5 years. We need to fill up the IAF's inventory and bring them to near squadron strength over the next 5 years on contract. The same with the navy's requirement for new subs and helicopters. All these need to be on contract in the next 5 years. After this is done, it's the next batch of contracts that will determine our place in the world. It's the new batch of contracts that will have FMBT, FGFA, new carriers, tranche 2 SSNs, cruisers, destroyers etc.

 

[Bon Plan]

The Indian Navy is moving ahead with a big-ticket proposal for acquiring its third aircraft carrier which is expected to cost around Rs 1.6 lakh crore along with the additional component of 57 fighter aircraft.

The Navy has one operational aircraft carrier in the INS Vikramaditya while another one, INS Vikrant, is under construction at the Cochin Shipyard Limited (CSL) and is expected to join service in the next few years.

“The Navy is planning to field its Rs 70,000 crore proposal before the defence ministry in near future which will cost around Rs 1.6 lakh crore at the approval stage itself along with the fighter plane component and the actual costs will go higher further as the programme moves ahead,” government sources told Mail Today.

The Navy has plans of buying 57 twin-engine fighter planes for the third aircraft carrier for which American F-18 and French Dassault Rafale are in the race.

“If one goes by the cost of the 36 Rafales acquired for the Air Force, the 57 planes are not going to cost us less than Rs 90,000-95,000 crore,” the sources said.

Citing the Chinese threat, the Navy had been asking for construction of the third nuclearpowered aircraft carrier using American technology and systems which is going to be far more expensive in comparison with the existing systems.

The Navy has been arguing that it should have one aircraft carrier each for the eastern and western sea boards with one aircraft carrier in reserve to take care of the time taken for refit and repair of any of the two carriers.

However, the defence ministry is not very keen on the project due to the high costs involved in it and it would force the government to change its acquisition plans for the coming years compelling it to wait list a number of other urgently required weapon systems of the Army and the Air Force, sources said.

The cost of equipment for the aircraft carrier take-off patented by an American private sector firm will also be a major factor in determining the final cost of the carrier for India, the sources said.

For buying the aircraft for the aircraft carrier, the Navy had floated a request for information (RFI) but it has not got any clearance from the defence ministry for issuing the tender for the project.

However, the Navy has already allowed the vendors to give it a presentation on whether their planes would be able to take off from the Russian-origin INS Vikramaditya or not. Defence ministry sources also said the need for further expanding the aircraft carrier fleet needs to be thought over again as all targets and routes in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR) can be looked after well by the existing assets and bases in the area.

Due to this reason, the defence ministry had refused to clear the five-year programme of the Navy as agreeing to it would required at least doubling the current acquisition budget of the ministry.

The government of India already spends 28 per cent of its total acquisition budget on fulfilling the requirements of the three services and increasing it to a higher level does not seem possible in the near future, sources said.

Original Source of Article

An Indian Rafale M will use all the indigenization work made and already paid for IAF : Helmet, laser pod, Astra integration...
Even some test benchs, tools and spare parts stock may be shared with IAF.
A common team for overhaul also.

There is a potential cost reduction effect.

 

[Bon Plan]

I personally think a carrier in Bay of Bengal is useless, its like putting a carrier in Caspian sea, Would be better instead to develop naval air bases with planes like say Su-34 etc that can be used in truly multi roles like
a) Long range reconnaissance, anti shipping and strike
b) Long range interdictor
c) Air dominance
d) AEW and EW (needing more special pods for this role)

Aircraft carriers should be used for offensive roles for power projection and having an aircraft carrier in "pond" called bay of Bengal will be big big risk. Keeping it in Indian ocean makes sense, but not in bay of bengal where our land based aircraft like Su-30 MKI or say Su-34 (in my concept case) can maintain air dominance over entire bay of bengal from bases in Chennai, to Kolkata. Rather we dont even need an aircraft carrier to face Pakistan, In simple terms Carriers should be used as Strike corps. I think the days of carrier are long gone, and India is in some stupid nostaliga believing that they need a carrier to show they are powerful. Please do remember that Russia was able to project their power in Syria even using their long range missiles from Black sea.. so the sooner we get out of this mindset and develop newer doctrines based on ACTUAL VALUE PRODUCTS

India want to play a political and military role not only 1500km away of the bengal bay, but far away.

Don't forget the huge political effect of a carrier. It's far more than 65000 tons of steel.

 

[smestarz]

Carriers are big targets and to try and protect them we need to have a carrier group, which then makes it a nice target for enemy and a bit difficult one too. But with all the missiles that are now available, it would not be difficult to target such a CBG with swarm and mix of missiles. for example Prahar are launched first and due to their subsonic speed they take time to reach the target and then at optimum time fire the brahmos which have shorter range but can take out the ships protecting the battle group. One target can become many.
So best would be to,

1. Develop more destroyer or frigate classes with better SAMs CIWS and also Surface to surface missiles.
2. Develop amphibian AWACS say maybe using US-2 as base,
3. Develop Naval air bases near important harbours and keep long range MRCAs that can do various strike, interdiction, air superiority, EW and other roles within the sphere of influence.
4. Develop MALE and HALE with better sensors to have a complete picture of whats happening say 200 kms around our maritime border and beyond.
5. Develop submarines not only SSBN but also silent diesel electric submarines and try to increase their range so that they can patrol and control not only our end of Malacca strait but also be able to move silent in Yellow sea and be threat to PLAN in case of war. Diesel electric submarines are silent and stealthy and excellent sub killers.

If ruling the IOR is our goal for next two decades how about go for a subsurface fleet combined with a under water detection system like sosus and a robust satellite system. We could integrate our own already existing missile systems with the above and make new outposts to launch such missiles for fraction of a cost than maintaining the three cvs. This might not be a permanent solution but a temporary one for next 2 decades until we fill the gaps with the airforce and army

 

[smestarz]

Indian navy has their requirement paramount, and their requirements will be different than that of Air force,
Technically the test bence and spares etc does not concern Navy, That will be of concern to GoI but not to the navy.
Also, Navy does not share stocks with IAF. Thus the spares of MiG-29 maintained by IAF and Navy are different and not shared, not even the weapons.

An Indian Rafale M will use all the indigenization work made and already paid for IAF : Helmet, laser pod, Astra integration...
Even some test benchs, tools and spare parts stock may be shared with IAF.
A common team for overhaul also.

There is a potential cost reduction effect.

 

[smestarz]

Your own carrier is more in the port than in action, So can we safely say that France is impotent in terms of Foreign political desires?
Let me give you a few example,.. Thailand and Italy both have carriers and so do the Spanish. these are small carriers and I do not see them play a political or Military roles.
The Era of Aircraft carrier got over by Gulf war, now is the time for asymmetric mobile warfare. Carrier is importantly 65000 ton target that can be targetted by the likes of missiles developed by us Brahmos etc. India desires to be important in Indian ocean region and there are ways to do that and of course carriers can do that, but a carrier cannot do much in bay of bengal nor in yellow Sea.. So we have to develop tactics not only for Indian ocean but also to for yellow sea. Chinese developed "string of pearls " for anti indian desires, we can develop a "noose of jute" by developing weapons and tactics that would be important from Malacca strait to Yellow Sea

India want to play a political and military role not only 1500km away of the bengal bay, but far away.

Don't forget the huge political effect of a carrier. It's far more than 65000 tons of steel.

 

[Paro]

India want to play a political and military role not only 1500km away of the bengal bay, but far away.

Don't forget the huge political effect of a carrier. It's far more than 65000 tons of steel.

Imagine a 65000 ton diesel Indian carrier near Malacca straits or an Indian SSN stationed in yellow sea tailing a Chinese CBG day and night. Which is more threatening?

 

[Bon Plan]

Thailand and Italy both have carriers and so do the Spanish

These are not carrier. At best helo platform with some short legs subsonic fighters.
We are not speaking of the same beasts.

 

[Bon Plan]

Imagine a 65000 ton diesel Indian carrier in near Malacca straits or an Indian SSN stationed in yellow sea tailing a Chinese CBG day and night. Which is more threatening?

It depend what kind of effect you want to create : military? (and in this case against ships? against ground targets? to create a air superiority?) or political ?
The two are usefull. in differents fields.

 

[Kshithij Sharma]

Your own carrier is more in the port than in action, So can we safely say that France is impotent in terms of Foreign political desires?
Let me give you a few example,.. Thailand and Italy both have carriers and so do the Spanish. these are small carriers and I do not see them play a political or Military roles.
The Era of Aircraft carrier got over by Gulf war, now is the time for asymmetric mobile warfare. Carrier is importantly 65000 ton target that can be targetted by the likes of missiles developed by us Brahmos etc. India desires to be important in Indian ocean region and there are ways to do that and of course carriers can do that, but a carrier cannot do much in bay of bengal nor in yellow Sea.. So we have to develop tactics not only for Indian ocean but also to for yellow sea. Chinese developed "string of pearls " for anti indian desires, we can develop a "noose of jute" by developing weapons and tactics that would be important from Malacca strait to Yellow Sea

If you are assuming that carrier attacks first, then you are correct in saying that carrier is more of a risk. But in reality, the ones attacking first are tiny missile boats which are expendable. Even the big destroyers are used seldomly for first wave. Carriers are not for sea dominance but for providing support to invasion by means of air cover after the navy of enemy is taken out. Carrier is for force projection and not for direct fighting on the sea.

 

[smestarz]

Term Force projection is same as Sea domination. The area within which your CBG operates, the carrier has to ensure that the area beyond this CBG is sanitised by the air partrolling by the Carriers plane.
Missile boat dont have long range due to fuel capacity limitations

If you are assuming that carrier attacks first, then you are correct in saying that carrier is more of a risk. But in reality, the ones attacking first are tiny missile boats which are expendable. Even the big destroyers are used seldomly for first wave. Carriers are not for sea dominance but for providing support to invasion by means of air cover after the navy of enemy is taken out. Carrier is for force projection and not for direct fighting on the sea.

 

[smestarz]

Of course they are carriers, and they flew Harrier AV-8B and also helicopters
India had older Vikrant which was older british HMS Hercules and INS Viraat was HMS Hermes, and both flew similar plane, we used Sea Harrier both Cavour and HTMS Chakri Naruebet flew same planes AV-8B so they become helicopter carriers?
IF a carrier can allow for a plane to land and to take off then its a Aircraft carrier, Please keep this definition,, now do you need definition of aircraft?

These are not carrier. At best helo platform with some short legs subsonic fighters.
We are not speaking of the same beasts.