Missile boats have enough fuel to patrol in Arabian sea and Bay of Bengal. The carrier is not only for sea domination but also for attacking far away enemy land
IAC-2 Future Aircraft Carrier Project - News & Discussions
- Thread starter Ashwin
- Start date
-
- Tags
- ins vishal
Carrier is good for sea domination and attack far away enemy targets but the problem is that since its carrier based plane, but range and the load is limited due to not putting too much stress on air frame.
Also lets assume Indian navy carrier based plane attack Pakistan, surely their planes would chase the retreating planes. Now the PAF would be able to put more planes in the air than a carrier., So what do the retreating planes do? Dump themselves in the sea or return to carrier and hence give away its position? Remember the carrier will be limited by numbers and PAF knowing these are carrier planes, will firstly put on more nos in air and also know that these planes will return to the carrier and hence it puts the carrier group and the carrier at risk.
Carrier group is useful if you are able to project more (twice ) the nos of planes as compared to enemy. And in the example you gave, we would not be able to do so. We can do that for bangladesh, sri lanka or Seychelles or Myanmar but not China or pakistan.
The Americans were successful in Gulf war not due to carrier but their Saudi based USAF was able to put more planes in air much more than what Iraqi air force could put. Let us say we are in war with Pakistan, when actually would you use to strike targets in Pakistan? you would be targeting Islamabad? No... you would be targeting Karachi.. yes, Karachi can be targeted by Land based planes.. Are you going to use Carrier against Chinese assets in south china sea? No.. where exactly would you use it? Please give me a real life example where you would use carrier if you are indian admiral, lets see your example
Also lets assume Indian navy carrier based plane attack Pakistan, surely their planes would chase the retreating planes. Now the PAF would be able to put more planes in the air than a carrier., So what do the retreating planes do? Dump themselves in the sea or return to carrier and hence give away its position? Remember the carrier will be limited by numbers and PAF knowing these are carrier planes, will firstly put on more nos in air and also know that these planes will return to the carrier and hence it puts the carrier group and the carrier at risk.
Carrier group is useful if you are able to project more (twice ) the nos of planes as compared to enemy. And in the example you gave, we would not be able to do so. We can do that for bangladesh, sri lanka or Seychelles or Myanmar but not China or pakistan.
The Americans were successful in Gulf war not due to carrier but their Saudi based USAF was able to put more planes in air much more than what Iraqi air force could put. Let us say we are in war with Pakistan, when actually would you use to strike targets in Pakistan? you would be targeting Islamabad? No... you would be targeting Karachi.. yes, Karachi can be targeted by Land based planes.. Are you going to use Carrier against Chinese assets in south china sea? No.. where exactly would you use it? Please give me a real life example where you would use carrier if you are indian admiral, lets see your example
I don't think so.
Why do you think China, India, Brasil have carriers on fleet, on dock or on study ? Not just to copy USN.
An island is difficult to sink, but easy to target.
A carrier is not so easy to find, even now.
How many Harrier each ? 8? 12? not more. You called that a carrier? Just enough plane to give a 24/24H air couverture. maybe some recco. Nothing more (and the Harrier is short legs and short load).
In this case a Ford Ka is a kind of limousine?
Carrier is not for sea clearance. Carrier is for force projection against land based assets. The first use is always in missiles and then missile boats and on the sea followed by ASW warfare. Then comes air force and carrier operations. So, by the time carrier operations are starting, the other formalities would have been taken care of. Also, it is not meaningful to attack an intact airforce of enemy with carrier based planes. Carrier attacks have to some only after weakening the enemy and then preparing for invasion. It can be used against Pakistan like Gwadar or to attack Arab countries like Saudi Arabia or even against countries like Maldives that only have been major pain in the *censored*
All these countries have a carrier because they are still under the mental thinking that if you have UNSC seat or desirable for it, you should have a carrier to try and project power. Why actually does Royal navy require carrier? For Falkland islands? French need it for Reunion. China wants to show off., Brazill.. uff, they have economic issues and when their govt spending was really bad, Brazil deemed it very important to host 2014 world cup which it lost (cup as well as economy) the whole investment in infrastructure was not worth the efforts.
Many countries copy the idea of US Navy. Even the french are trying to but not succeeding
Island are difficult to sink and it can be developed as you like, Also it has bigger area to put in Defences. Carriers are not really difficult to find. Anyone in this forum can tell you where CDG is. And because the carriers are not that diffcult to find hence the need of CBG to ensure that the carriers are protects. If the carriers are not as easy to find there is no need for CBG. Even CDG does not travel alone without any screening ships does it? Why does it do so? Dont like to travel alone?
Just to give you one slight unrelated example, In battle of Midway the Japanese carriers were lost much faster than when Japanese held off Iwo Jima ..Example of Carrier and of Island ..
Island can afford protection and places to hide, and of course your actual numbers can be hidden and since island cannot be sunk, it remains.
Carrier on other hand sinks taking down few billion dollars worth of investment and few hundred lives at least.
Still interested in Apples vs strawberries?
Many countries copy the idea of US Navy. Even the french are trying to but not succeeding
Island are difficult to sink and it can be developed as you like, Also it has bigger area to put in Defences. Carriers are not really difficult to find. Anyone in this forum can tell you where CDG is. And because the carriers are not that diffcult to find hence the need of CBG to ensure that the carriers are protects. If the carriers are not as easy to find there is no need for CBG. Even CDG does not travel alone without any screening ships does it? Why does it do so? Dont like to travel alone?
Just to give you one slight unrelated example, In battle of Midway the Japanese carriers were lost much faster than when Japanese held off Iwo Jima ..Example of Carrier and of Island ..
Island can afford protection and places to hide, and of course your actual numbers can be hidden and since island cannot be sunk, it remains.
Carrier on other hand sinks taking down few billion dollars worth of investment and few hundred lives at least.
Still interested in Apples vs strawberries?
If going by the way American Carrier carry 90 planes, that might equate CDG as dustbin. Well its being repaired and maintained and so it will be out for what 18 months? So then which carrier does France have operational and fit and in sea? None ..
There is no Defacto standard as to how much should be the compliment of the carrier for it to be Aircraft carrier. The only definition being that if an aircraft can safely take off and land on carrier then it is aircraft carrier.
During Falkland wars, HMS Invincible R05 was the British lead carrier with compliment of 12-18 Harriers and yes, it was the lead ship, Also it was able to provide air cover and strike operations to ensure that the Argentinian air force was not able to interfere. Job done.
How many planes does the dustbin carrier CDG have? 50? 60? 90??? I read it can carry just 24 at present, with limited to 40.
So, what would you call a Carrier made by the French, which can carry just 24 planes and which is out for almost 2 years for repairs and refit ? Really a carrier??? LOL
There is no Defacto standard as to how much should be the compliment of the carrier for it to be Aircraft carrier. The only definition being that if an aircraft can safely take off and land on carrier then it is aircraft carrier.
During Falkland wars, HMS Invincible R05 was the British lead carrier with compliment of 12-18 Harriers and yes, it was the lead ship, Also it was able to provide air cover and strike operations to ensure that the Argentinian air force was not able to interfere. Job done.
How many planes does the dustbin carrier CDG have? 50? 60? 90??? I read it can carry just 24 at present, with limited to 40.
So, what would you call a Carrier made by the French, which can carry just 24 planes and which is out for almost 2 years for repairs and refit ? Really a carrier??? LOL
The most important is the naval doctrine, what is the need of carrier. Indian navy's doctrine for need of carrier is childish with no clear doctrine of how and when to use carrier. Carrier can be used for Sea clearance, Force projection. You are wrong when you limit an asset like a carrier for action only against land targets because you are surely looking at the biggest user of Carrier which is USA and most of its war has been with countries that did not project power in the sea. Thus USN had the advantage of being able to use their carrier with impunity as the opposing side did not have a credible naval force. In fact none of the navy will have the force projection that of US NAVY, not even 25% of it. Carrier based planes have limitation of range and if they have to be refuled it will need to co-ordinate land based refuelers.
Since whatever you described, Weakening of enemy defence and invasion. since that is not part of indian doctrine, thus by your very definition Carrier should not be part of indian doctrine, we are a peace loving nation which does not see cause to invade other country.
Since whatever you described, Weakening of enemy defence and invasion. since that is not part of indian doctrine, thus by your very definition Carrier should not be part of indian doctrine, we are a peace loving nation which does not see cause to invade other country.
there was one point that I missed about Brazil
Brazil is retiring its only aircraft carrier.. They are retiring without a new one in development or available
And they are going to buy used HMS Ocean a british Helicopter carrier ..
So like you said in one post, that how carrier are powerful etc, why are the retiring it, and why puchase a 2nd hand helicopter carrier? Force projection or just to show they have a carrier !!
Brazil is retiring its only aircraft carrier.. They are retiring without a new one in development or available
And they are going to buy used HMS Ocean a british Helicopter carrier ..
So like you said in one post, that how carrier are powerful etc, why are the retiring it, and why puchase a 2nd hand helicopter carrier? Force projection or just to show they have a carrier !!
during peace time, maybe.
During war, no. A nuclear carrier can travel 1000km each day. Not so easy to find, even with spy satelit, ever the horizon radar....
An island in the pacific is not so usefull if you have to fight in the mediterranean sea... Island is nice for dock, harbour, crew rest. But with the actual metric weapons, a dense salvo of cruise missiles can destroy all your main SAM, radar, warehouse, runaway on one time.
Argentina top generals made a huge mistake : they begun the fight some months too early : the main GB carrier was to be withdraw...
And don't forget what was the argentina's air fllet : old Mirage 3, working at the very limit of the range.
Just imagine they had some more exocets.... The GB fleet had known its own Trafalgar.
French carrier is studied to embark 32 Rafale. But you can't compare the efficency of a Rafale or SH18 and those of a Harrier.
Far less range, far less load, subsonic only. Some only carry short range IR AAM...
Brazil is a bad exemple.
They retired the few Mirage 2000 without replacement also.
I don't want to imagine how is the army today...
Island can have underground bunkers too. A salvo of missiles are unlikely to destroy the island. Yes, radars ca be taken out, but that is the case in every location as radars are always exposed to the open. Also, you are considering islands to be some small 1 sq km islan. What if the island is a larger one? As big as a city with 500 sq km area? Or a set of 1000 islands? Andaman and Nicobar is a set of 600 island and have 6000sq km area. Can you just sink it with missile salvos?
You seem to overestimate power of missiles. If that was the case, things would have been far different. The reality is that wars are not fought because of oil and natural resource. Wars fought are unlikely to end till last drop of oil is expended as today's warfare is based on machines rather than humans. Natural resource, especially oil can fuel these machines indefinitely. Since machines are much more powerful than humans, there will be extraordinary destruction without end till resources run out.
Brazil? Lol! Does Brazil even have a decent army, air force or navy? Brazil is an example of a badly managed country
SCALP for exemple can penetrate deep undergrounded bunker, as some US missiles.
Even if bunkers are not destroyed, the men inside are free. But no more radar, no more sam, no more anti ship battery, destroyed harbour, ships in fire in the harbour, runaway out of service.... It's over.
USN took many Japanese occupated islands during WW2, but not all ! An island with ennemys on but with no more potent weapons is no more a threat.
Even that is overhyped. The bunkers can be frtified with multilayered concrete walls to that the tandem warheads don't cause much damage at all. These bunkers are not hastily built up mud settlement but carefully planned ones. You can definitely take out islands, but so can you take out lands. Big islands are like a country itself. For example, Britain is 2.4 lakh sq km while Andaman and Nicobar is 8000 sq km. UK is 30 times larger in area than Andaman & Nicobar. But in terms of length, UK is 915km while A&N is 770km. This means that despite small area (3-4% of UK), A&N has almost similar dispersal. A&N is difficult to target by enemy as it is more expansive and distributed. If they destroy assets in one area, then there will be still lot of assets in other area.
The same can be said about lakshadweep which has area of 36 sq km and has only 32 islands but is expansive in nature. Maldives also comes in similar category with 1200 islands but area of 300 sq km only. This is also the reason why Maldives is a big problem.
Islands are generally in a group and not single. So, it is difficult to take them over without suffering severe losses or by way of having extremely superior technology. If you are speaking of one island the size of aircraft carrier (or upto 10 times the size of aircraft carrier), then you are correct in saying that carrier is better. But, if it is a group of islands then Islands are way better than carriers
OK.
The bunkers are indestructible.
But all the rest on the surface is destroyed. What is the use of you deep bunkers ?
The Irakis made a lot of concrete + steel shieds for their planes (made by france compagny). Were the planes alive after the tomahawk or LGB raids ?
Iraq had several problems:
1) Complete lack of weapons manufacturing
2)Lack of arms and ammunition excepting for some reserves from war with Iran
3) Lack of food supply and dependency on foreign imports for food.
4) Lack of meaningful navy and missiles
5) Lack of SAMs and radars
6)Low population of just 16 million
7) Isolation from the world with practically everyone against it including its neighbours - Iran, Syria and KSA
8) Massive build up and unlimited funding of enemy(oil of KSA, Qatar and mass weapons manufacturing by NATO)
Iraqis had no counter offensive weapons at all. No bunkers are long lasting. They are only useful for temporary respite. Without counter offensive and an unlimited supply to enemy, the defence systems can never hold. These defences can impose severe cost with right counter offensive only. Iraqis simply hid inside bunkers, their planes fled into Iran, their soldiers surrendered when confronted.
Iraqis just had bunkers to hide, which did buy them time but they had nothing to attack with. NATO had to do a build up of several months before taking out Iraq decisively.
Did you hear abt Brahmos missiles or Prahar? How come these are supposed to be effective against Chinese carriers only ??
Aircraft carrier is already an after thought.
The evolution, Triremes that would ram into each other.. to -- triremes that can fire each other with catapults and ballistas .... ships that can carry more cannons .... ships that can carry 16th inch guns at least 8 or 9 ..... aircraft carrier....
The evolution has gone on bases of which has better fire power and can hit enemy at a distance, So in carrier vs battle ship scenario, the carrier has advantage due to range, at say range of more than 80 miles the carrier is supreme, but as the range is say 30 kms the probablity of victory goes more in favour of the battleship..
Thus if a ship is heavily armed and can take out the carrier from range well beyond the range of the carrier planes, would you still think its era of carrier?
A Squadrons of planes carrying Brahmos can fire the missiles from around 300 kms from carrier or fire prahar from smaller missile frigates from longer distance and then simply let the missile take down the target, so here you have a weapon with a much longer range than carrier.
Also if the carrier manages to sink the missile boat its acceptable loss, but if the missiles are able to put the carrier out of action, thats era of carrier OFFICIALLY OVER. We have to just wait for another conflict where one has the carrier and other has long range missiles like Brahmos and you will see this to be true.
Aircraft carrier is already an after thought.
The evolution, Triremes that would ram into each other.. to -- triremes that can fire each other with catapults and ballistas .... ships that can carry more cannons .... ships that can carry 16th inch guns at least 8 or 9 ..... aircraft carrier....
The evolution has gone on bases of which has better fire power and can hit enemy at a distance, So in carrier vs battle ship scenario, the carrier has advantage due to range, at say range of more than 80 miles the carrier is supreme, but as the range is say 30 kms the probablity of victory goes more in favour of the battleship..
Thus if a ship is heavily armed and can take out the carrier from range well beyond the range of the carrier planes, would you still think its era of carrier?
A Squadrons of planes carrying Brahmos can fire the missiles from around 300 kms from carrier or fire prahar from smaller missile frigates from longer distance and then simply let the missile take down the target, so here you have a weapon with a much longer range than carrier.
Also if the carrier manages to sink the missile boat its acceptable loss, but if the missiles are able to put the carrier out of action, thats era of carrier OFFICIALLY OVER. We have to just wait for another conflict where one has the carrier and other has long range missiles like Brahmos and you will see this to be true.
Carriers are too big to sink to a small amount of firepower.
And ships also have defences that can stop attacks.
