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

[randomradio]

Is being a ' blue water navy' tag more important with a show the flag force or being more capable to handle china more important?

The blue water navy tag is what gives us the ability to handle China.

Chinese are building 'atleast' 6 85k-100k tonnes carriers.Personally i believe even our current force of carriers is largely not very useful except that they help us maintain vital chain of experience of carrier ops that we will need after 2040 when we graduate to real carriers( if hypersonic weapons dont render them obsolete by then) and because they can bully pakistan.They arent of much use even now in chinese context.Another 65 k tonne carrier against huge chinese flattops isnt going to change anything.We cant match the chinese in numbers or tonnage.But the best assymetric weapon is the submarine.A single silent submarine can paralyze a whole fleet .What is the greatest enemy of a submarine? Patrol aircraft.And the chinese cant use those away from their shores operating in the IOR.We need to exploit that.We will also have enough land based support from aircraft and shore batteries(andaman,southern and east india )where our surface fleet should operate( under umbrella) whereas ssk submarines should lurk in chokepoints in ambush and faster ssn should conduct hit and run attacks harassing the ingressing chinese fleet.
A 65k tonne carrier with its wing would cost 20 billion dollars plus.It would have over 2000 sailors with enormous daily maintainence costs.On top of that carriers are not ' future proof' ..we dont know how they will cope with the hypersonic era.
A modern diesel submarine costs around 500 million with low operating costs with 50 sailors.A nuclear submarine costs from 1 to 3 billion depending on sophistication.
What do you think will deter the chinese more for those 20 billion dollars of expenditure? 1 65k tonne carrier? Or 30-40 diesel submarines?Or may be 5 ssn +15-20 ssk mix?

That's not how it works. It's not 65k T carrier versus 100k T carrier. It's all about the type of aircraft the ships will carry and the way you use them.

Also, you have created this impression that we have to choose between carrier or submarines, but we are going for both.

We are going for 6 SSN + 24 SSK mix for now. And we are going for a third carrier. And we will also be going for a 4th, 5th and 6th after 2040.

Navy's current submarine plans are pathetic.They envision a force of 18 diesel submarines ,6 ssn and 6 ssbn.18 diesel submarines are a joke .Even pakistan is planning a force of 11 ssk(8 yuan plus 3 agosta).Navy needs to stop building loads of redundant ships ,especially these huge opvs and build submarines for a change.6 scorpenes,6 p75i and some older kilos is not going to cut it.Even ssn will come after 2030.They need to buy a dozen lada or upgraded kilos just to maintain numbers off the shelf in this decade itself.We need 24-30 ssk if we are going to only have 6 ssn.Once our submarine situation is stable let the navy buy a carrier if it can afford it,sure.But not at the cost of the sub fleet.Infact even if we had no carrier right now it wouldnt impact us much vis a vis china if we had a dozen more subs instead.

It's not 18 SSKs, but 24. Regardless, even 18 SSKs is a huge fleet, it's more than enough to keep both Pakistan and China in check.

Lets get to 10 trillion dollar economy first then start carrier building,china has a 12 trillion dollar economy before it started building.

Incorrect way to look at it. Look at PPP instead. Any carrier construction plan has to be an indigenous effort, so your own internal economy is going to fund it. China started their carrier plans when they were $10-15T worth. India is currently at $10T, so it's about time we start too, so our third carrier begins construction when we are at least $15T worth.

If you want to see how to maintain a powerful navy and plan well with limited resources look to the russians.The russians understand very well the future is in the submarine.So what are they doing?
They scrapped their next generation destroyer programme, their carrier programme,they build corvettes,talwar frigates abd a very limited amount of the sophisticated gorshkov frigates.Instead they went all out on submarines and land based assets.The bulk of the budget goes to yasen m new generation SSNs which cost a whopping 3 billion plus each,but even then they build them above all.The rest have been used to build borei class ssbn t 1 billion each and upgraded kilo class ssk to make up numbers at (400-500 miilion each).
This tells you the russian navy planners clearly understand their role vis a vis their main enemy - the us navy.
They have deployed land based bastion ( oniks/brahmos) coastal batteries in crimea,kaliningrad and sakhalin islands,they upgraded tu22 maritime strike bombers and inducted su34 strike bombers.
The russians recognize they are a sea denial force.The problem with IN admirals is they have gotten so used to the idea of dominating the IOR they are embedded in a sea dominance mentality that they practice against pakistan,their egos wont let them switch to a rational sea denial strategy vis a vis china,because sea dominance would never work against PLAN irrespective of whether you build another 65k tonne carrier or not.Government must not give in to the megalomania of the IN admirals and force them to accept the rational practical solution,not the prestige solution.

Not true at all. The Russians are gonna build multiple nuclear powered destroyers and even carriers. They are just too broke to build a surface fleet right now so they are concentrating on submarines and smaller ships instead. They are doing it out of compulsion, not choice. Not to mention, the Russian navy's surface capabilities are far more powerful than the IN, so they can afford to go a little slower on their surface fleet modernisation.

They are starting off with 2 Lider class destroyers, which will slowly climb into the double digits. The project has already begun with the design stage.
Russia to build 2 Lider-class nuclear-powered destroyers by end of 2020s — source

Then they will also follow it up with the Shtorm carrier, with the intention to operate after 2035, no different from our plans for IAC-3. The work on this carrier has also started.

So you can expect the Russians to start building their next gen destroyer and carrier after 2025. In the meantime they are building as many as 15 to possibly 30 Gorshkov class frigates which have as much or more firepower than the Kolkata class destroyer.

When it comes to the navy, you are nothing without a surface fleet, and the surface fleet is nothing without a carrier.

 

[randomradio]

Once UCAVs and swarm drones mature in tech, the need for large carries might be reduced, with smaller unmanned systems launch and recovery might be even more simplified eliminating the need for large carriers.

The exact opposite. UCAVs and swarm drones will only increase the importance for carriers.

Only space-capable fighters with intercontinental ranges and with the ability to perform multiple exits and reentries in a single sortie can potentially replace carriers, but those are not expected to exist for quite a long time. Even then we will still need carriers due to affordability and conduct operations at higher tempo.

 

[_Anonymous_]

I sincerely wonder why after all your brilliant analysis, you get carried away & come up with gems like this.

The concept behind such UCAV & Swarm drones is that they're long endurance and with the fast development of Li Battery tech , for all you know they may be able to traverse half way across the earth in a short span of time. Now imagine deploying 100's of them against a carrier. If for nothing then just to create a diversion and keep them occupied while you accomplish your task.

The exact opposite. UCAVs and swarm drones will only increase the importance for carriers.

Only space-capable fighters with intercontinental ranges and with the ability to perform multiple exits and reentries in a single sortie can potentially replace carriers, but those are not expected to exist for quite a long time. Even then we will still need carriers due to affordability and conduct operations at higher tempo.

 

[Austerlitz]

The blue water navy tag is what gives us the ability to handle China.



That's not how it works. It's not 65k T carrier versus 100k T carrier. It's all about the type of aircraft the ships will carry and the way you use them.

Also, you have created this impression that we have to choose between carrier or submarines, but we are going for both.

We are going for 6 SSN + 24 SSK mix for now. And we are going for a third carrier. And we will also be going for a 4th, 5th and 6th after 2040.



It's not 18 SSKs, but 24. Regardless, even 18 SSKs is a huge fleet, it's more than enough to keep both Pakistan and China in check.



Incorrect way to look at it. Look at PPP instead. Any carrier construction plan has to be an indigenous effort, so your own internal economy is going to fund it. China started their carrier plans when they were $10-15T worth. India is currently at $10T, so it's about time we start too, so our third carrier begins construction when we are at least $15T worth.



Not true at all. The Russians are gonna build multiple nuclear powered destroyers and even carriers. They are just too broke to build a surface fleet right now so they are concentrating on submarines and smaller ships instead. They are doing it out of compulsion, not choice. Not to mention, the Russian navy's surface capabilities are far more powerful than the IN, so they can afford to go a little slower on their surface fleet modernisation.

They are starting off with 2 Lider class destroyers, which will slowly climb into the double digits. The project has already begun with the design stage.
Russia to build 2 Lider-class nuclear-powered destroyers by end of 2020s — source

Then they will also follow it up with the Shtorm carrier, with the intention to operate after 2035, no different from our plans for IAC-3. The work on this carrier has also started.

So you can expect the Russians to start building their next gen destroyer and carrier after 2025. In the meantime they are building as many as 15 to possibly 30 Gorshkov class frigates which have as much or more firepower than the Kolkata class destroyer.

When it comes to the navy, you are nothing without a surface fleet, and the surface fleet is nothing without a carrier.

Firstly a tag is just a tag.Its meaningless without capability.1 carrier wont appreciably increase our capability..30 to 40 submarines definitely will.

A 100k tonne carrier will have much more flexibility and power in its airwing than a 65 tonne one even if you somehow manage to get f35s( doubtful) which would shoot up costs to over 30 billion and bankrupt the navy.So yes..tonnage matters for a carrier.

24 submarines is waaay into the future.Navys current plans are 6 scorpene..6 p75i and then indigeneous types 6-12.Its a joke ..how are 18 ssks supposed to keep china and pakistan in check.A bankrupt junk military like pakistan is going to have 11 submarines.Then if the chinese put 25 AIP ssk and half a dozen ssn type 93 into the ior along with 2 cbg flotillas what are you going to fight with?We need a lot of ssks by 2035.At current rate we will max have 18 by that date.Its about mentality than anything else..IN planners want a sea dominance campaign against china when they should focus on sea denial.
On the russians..all their big ships are old.The grandiose plans about gorshkov class have led to so far to 1 ship in service..lider and storm have been shelved for now with only projections..no construction.What is being built are yasen..borei..upgraded kilo and ladas.Along with few frigates and corvettes.

A surface fleet is nothing without a carrier only when its operating away from land based support..not otherwise.Carriers are indispensable if you want expeditionary forces.We dont have such requirement.There are 4 bases in andaman itself..with multiple assets from indian mainland supporting and surface fleet with 2 carriers operating under umbrells.What specific capacity would 3rd carrier give us?
Im ok with carrier if they first get 12 more ssk and cover up that front.Going carrier with a handful of subs is suicide.IN seems to be living in the past.Dazzled by USN supercarriers and forgotten its limitations.MoD needs to deal with them with an iron hand.No more carrier construction before we have 40- 50 active subs first.Buy the helos first..since they are building useless ships atm with no helos...stop building oversized OPVs in huge numbers..and get some goddamn torpedoes on the new subs.Thats what IN needs to do.Alongside the neverending p75i tender saga buy a few russian subs off the shelf or expand scorpene line.I absolutely will consider IN planning a failure if i have to by the end of next decade IN with 15 ssk(6 +6 + remaining kilos) while bankrupt PN operates 11 and china god knows how many.If that happens IN has failed totally in planning due to its ego.

 

[randomradio]

I sincerely wonder why after all your brilliant analysis, you get carried away & come up with gems like this.

The concept behind such UCAV & Swarm drones is that they're long endurance and with the fast development of Li Battery tech , for all you know they may be able to traverse half way across the earth in a short span of time. Now imagine deploying 100's of them against a carrier. If for nothing then just to create a diversion and keep them occupied while you accomplish your task.

Swarm drones are small, you need a mothership to pull it off, and that mothership has to operate from a carrier if you want to go to distant lands.

As for UCAVs, all that's not gonna work 'cause you may nor may not have any communication nodes left during a hot war. For this as well, you will need physical presence to pull it off.

UCAVs and swarm drones are meant for a specific purpose, and a carrier is central to both. Meaning, you still need carriers and their fighter jets and support ships in order to protect your UCAV and your space assets. How are you going to communicate with a drone if you don't have something physical protecting your communication assets?

As for carrier protection from UCAVs and swarm drones, lasers will defeat them easy-peasy. To defeat carriers, you need heavy aircraft deploying long range missiles in large numbers, and you may have to go about it step-by-step, defeat the carrier's fighter jets, support ships, blow holes in the carrier's defences and then get to the carrier itself.

 

[Bali78]

Swarm drones are small, you need a mothership to pull it off, and that mothership has to operate from a carrier if you want to go to distant lands.

As for UCAVs, all that's not gonna work 'cause you may nor may not have any communication nodes left during a hot war. For this as well, you will need physical presence to pull it off.

UCAVs and swarm drones are meant for a specific purpose, and a carrier is central to both. Meaning, you still need carriers and their fighter jets and support ships in order to protect your UCAV and your space assets. How are you going to communicate with a drone if you don't have something physical protecting your communication assets?

As for carrier protection from UCAVs and swarm drones, lasers will defeat them easy-peasy. To defeat carriers, you need heavy aircraft deploying long range missiles in large numbers, and you may have to go about it step-by-step, defeat the carrier's fighter jets, support ships, blow holes in the carrier's defences and then get to the carrier itself.

Please explain how a carrier is going to protect space assets ?? Dude, what are you smoking today ??

And how is laser going to protect against swarm drones ? If 100 drones are pressed into attack, a CBG will need at least 10s of laser guns to protect itself?? Sounds too far fetched and impractical.

 

[_Anonymous_]

Swarm drones are small, you need a mothership to pull it off, and that mothership has to operate from a carrier if you want to go to distant lands.

As for UCAVs, all that's not gonna work 'cause you may nor may not have any communication nodes left during a hot war. For this as well, you will need physical presence to pull it off.

UCAVs and swarm drones are meant for a specific purpose, and a carrier is central to both. Meaning, you still need carriers and their fighter jets and support ships in order to protect your UCAV and your space assets. How are you going to communicate with a drone if you don't have something physical protecting your communication assets?

As for carrier protection from UCAVs and swarm drones, lasers will defeat them easy-peasy. To defeat carriers, you need heavy aircraft deploying long range missiles in large numbers, and you may have to go about it step-by-step, defeat the carrier's fighter jets, support ships, blow holes in the carrier's defences and then get to the carrier itself.

The way technology in this sector is rapidly evolving, I suspect the size of the swarm drones and the payload it'd carry will see huge enhancements & the need for a mother ship to be launched from a Carrier done away with too .

In which case the A&N islandchain can well function as an Aircraft Carrier harbouring both swarm drones & UCAV's designed to interdict the Carrier fleets in the Sunda & Malacca Straits.

You can add a fleet of submarines to it too, in case we revise our policy and go in for more SSK's & SSN's.

As far as future technologies like Railguns, it's still in its nascent stages, though I suspect we'd see this mature in the next two decades. As far as lasers go, I've been hearing of it since Reagan's SDI aka Star Wars program. That was 3.5 decades ago. How many nations have reported success in deployment of lasers powerful enough to knock out drones leave aside Aircrafts since then.What you're referring to will come to pass in the post 2050's time period.That's too far ahead in the future for is to be considering them today .

 

[_Anonymous_]

Please explain how a carrier is going to protect space assets ?? Dude, what are you smoking today ??

And how is laser going to protect against swarm drones ? If 100 drones are pressed into attack, a CBG will need at least 10s of laser guns to protect itself?? Sounds too far fetched and impractical.

I'm telling you @randomradio is a planner in the futuristic war planning department of the IN & the IAF. That he's an active gamer and PUBG player is sheer & pure co incidence.

 

[randomradio]

Firstly a tag is just a tag.Its meaningless without capability.1 carrier wont appreciably increase our capability..30 to 40 submarines definitely will.

Haha. You didn't get what I said. You need a carrier to fight China. And having a carrier makes you a blue water navy. So you need to be a blue water navy to fight China. That tag is very important.

A 100k tonne carrier will have much more flexibility and power in its airwing than a 65 tonne one even if you somehow manage to get f35s( doubtful) which would shoot up costs to over 30 billion and bankrupt the navy.So yes..tonnage matters for a carrier.

A 65k T carrier is the minimum you need in order to compete with a 100k T carrier. The 100k T carrier and handle more missions, that's all.

Meaning, a 65k T carrier is needed as a minimum in order to attack the CBG of a 100k T carrier. All its resources will then be dedicated to defeat the enemy CBG. But a 100k T carrier can use half its assets to fight the CBG of the 65k T carrier while also attack another fleet elsewhere with the other half. Overall, it doesn't make much of a difference to us because our intention is to only fight another CBG, so a 65k T carrier is more than enough.

24 submarines is waaay into the future.Navys current plans are 6 scorpene..6 p75i and then indigeneous types 6-12.Its a joke ..how are 18 ssks supposed to keep china and pakistan in check.A bankrupt junk military like pakistan is going to have 11 submarines.Then if the chinese put 25 AIP ssk and half a dozen ssn type 93 into the ior along with 2 cbg flotillas what are you going to fight with?We need a lot of ssks by 2035.At current rate we will max have 18 by that date.Its about mentality than anything else..IN planners want a sea dominance campaign against china when they should focus on sea denial.

You are making a considerably large mistake. The Chinese cannot operate their SSKs in the IOR, it's too far for them. The only SSK that can pull off such a long distance mission is the SMX Ocean, and the Chinese have none of those. SSKs are meant for patrols right outside the harbour and a few hundred kilometers around it. At best, you can snorkel your way to elsewhere and then go underwater again, but that's pointless when up against the IN.

So what I'm saying is, any Chinese SSK will have to snorkel its way through the SCS and into the IOR and then go underwater. Snorkeling makes the submarine useless as a warfighter. And SSKs have significant range and speed restrictions, they can only choose either, not both.

On the russians..all their big ships are old.The grandiose plans about gorshkov class have led to so far to 1 ship in service..lider and storm have been shelved for now with only projections..no construction.What is being built are yasen..borei..upgraded kilo and ladas.Along with few frigates and corvettes.

As I said, they are broke, so they are taking their surface ship expansion slow. But their goal is the same as what the USN and PLAN have.

Did you forget the Soviets also had grandoise carrier plans based on the Ulyanovsk class?

A surface fleet is nothing without a carrier only when its operating away from land based support..not otherwise.Carriers are indispensable if you want expeditionary forces.We dont have such requirement.There are 4 bases in andaman itself..with multiple assets from indian mainland supporting and surface fleet with 2 carriers operating under umbrells.What specific capacity would 3rd carrier give us?

We do have expeditionary requirements. Why else are we buying 4 LHDs? We need the full gamut of capabilities the USN has. All major powers want what the USN have.

A 3rd carrier gives us 24/7 presence at sea.

Im ok with carrier if they first get 12 more ssk and cover up that front.Going carrier with a handful of subs is suicide.IN seems to be living in the past.Dazzled by USN supercarriers and forgotten its limitations.MoD needs to deal with them with an iron hand.No more carrier construction before we have 40- 50 active subs first.Buy the helos first..since they are building useless ships atm with no helos...stop building oversized OPVs in huge numbers..and get some goddamn torpedoes on the new subs.Thats what IN needs to do.Alongside the neverending p75i tender saga buy a few russian subs off the shelf or expand scorpene line.I absolutely will consider IN planning a failure if i have to by the end of next decade IN with 15 ssk(6 +6 + remaining kilos) while bankrupt PN operates 11 and china god knows how many.If that happens IN has failed totally in planning due to its ego.

We can make do with the number of SSKs we have for now. And we most definitely do not need 40-50 subs. Especially given the limitations of SSKs, as pointed above. What we really need are more minsweepers, anti-sub corvettes, tons of helicopters and P-8Is, which we are getting.

24 SSKs means we can have 12 in the Arabian Sea and 12 in the BoB. That's already overkill. Even 9 each is a lot, never mind 20 each.

And I wouldn't pay too much attention to Pakistani subs.

 

[Vicky]

Firstly a tag is just a tag.Its meaningless without capability.1 carrier wont appreciably increase our capability..30 to 40 submarines definitely will.

A 100k tonne carrier will have much more flexibility and power in its airwing than a 65 tonne one even if you somehow manage to get f35s( doubtful) which would shoot up costs to over 30 billion and bankrupt the navy.So yes..tonnage matters for a carrier.

24 submarines is waaay into the future.Navys current plans are 6 scorpene..6 p75i and then indigeneous types 6-12.Its a joke ..how are 18 ssks supposed to keep china and pakistan in check.A bankrupt junk military like pakistan is going to have 11 submarines.Then if the chinese put 25 AIP ssk and half a dozen ssn type 93 into the ior along with 2 cbg flotillas what are you going to fight with?We need a lot of ssks by 2035.At current rate we will max have 18 by that date.Its about mentality than anything else..IN planners want a sea dominance campaign against china when they should focus on sea denial.
On the russians..all their big ships are old.The grandiose plans about gorshkov class have led to so far to 1 ship in service..lider and storm have been shelved for now with only projections..no construction.What is being built are yasen..borei..upgraded kilo and ladas.Along with few frigates and corvettes.

A surface fleet is nothing without a carrier only when its operating away from land based support..not otherwise.Carriers are indispensable if you want expeditionary forces.We dont have such requirement.There are 4 bases in andaman itself..with multiple assets from indian mainland supporting and surface fleet with 2 carriers operating under umbrells.What specific capacity would 3rd carrier give us?
Im ok with carrier if they first get 12 more ssk and cover up that front.Going carrier with a handful of subs is suicide.IN seems to be living in the past.Dazzled by USN supercarriers and forgotten its limitations.MoD needs to deal with them with an iron hand.No more carrier construction before we have 40- 50 active subs first.Buy the helos first..since they are building useless ships atm with no helos...stop building oversized OPVs in huge numbers..and get some goddamn torpedoes on the new subs.Thats what IN needs to do.Alongside the neverending p75i tender saga buy a few russian subs off the shelf or expand scorpene line.I absolutely will consider IN planning a failure if i have to by the end of next decade IN with 15 ssk(6 +6 + remaining kilos) while bankrupt PN operates 11 and china god knows how many.If that happens IN has failed totally in planning due to its ego.

TBH we should keep up with the carrier building expertise. We shouldnt just toss the expertise away. However we shouldnt go with Nuclear carrier for now. We should build another 45-50k tonne carrier and equip it with Naval Tejas Mk2 or N-AMCA so we can gain expertise in carrier and naval aircraft building. In this case, we get capability, expertise and our own aircraft. Navy should stop going after fancy stuff like EMALS, flattops or 65k tonne carrier with foreign ac.

 

[Vicky]

The way technology in this sector is rapidly evolving, I suspect the size of the swarm drones and the payload it'd carry will see huge enhancements & the need for a mother ship to be launched from a Carrier done away with too .

In which case the A&N islandchain can well function as an Aircraft Carrier harbouring both swarm drones & UCAV's designed to interdict the Carrier fleets in the Sunda & Malacca Straits.

You can add a fleet of submarines to it too, in case we revise our policy and go in for more SSK's & SSN's.

As far as future technologies like Railguns, it's still in its nascent stages, though I suspect we'd see this mature in the next two decades. As far as lasers go, I've been hearing of it since Reagan's SDI aka Star Wars program. That was 3.5 decades ago. How many nations have reported success in deployment of lasers powerful enough to knock out drones leave aside Aircrafts since then.What you're referring to will come to pass in the post 2050's time period.That's too far ahead in the future for is to be considering them today .

An TUrkish laser took down CHinese drone in Libya. But amount of time required to put down one drone is unknown.

 

[_Anonymous_]

An TUrkish laser took down CHinese drone in Libya. But amount of time required to put down one drone is unknown.

Can you post the link to the article?

 

[Vicky]

Can you post the link to the article?

Turkish laser shoots down enemy drone in Libya, making military history | Ahval

 

[_Anonymous_]

Turkish laser shoots down enemy drone in Libya, making military history | Ahval

Very interesting. Though the article does point out the range as being 500 mtrs. If true, this capability can be upgraded over the years. Interestingly, the article also mentions China, US & Russia as being pioneers in laser development but none of them have weaponised a laser in the fashion the Turks have . This is a developing story. All such incidents would've to be monitored closely for us to arrive at a conclusion on whether lasers can be mounted on ships in the near future for an AD role or in an anti ship role too.

 

[Bali78]

Very interesting. Though the article does point out the range as being 500 mtrs. If true, this capability can be upgraded over the years. Interestingly, the article also mentions China, US & Russia as being pioneers in laser development but none of them have weaponised a laser in the fashion the Turks have . This is a developing story. All such incidents would've to be monitored closely for us to arrive at a conclusion on whether lasers can be mounted on ships in the near future for an AD role or in an anti ship role too.

It's already deployed in US ship.

AN/SEQ-3 Laser Weapon System - Wikipedia

 

[Ankit Kumar]

1. Postpone IAC2 plans to afterwards of 2028-30.
2. Postpone LHD plans for another 5-7 years.
3. Cancel P75I and P76 plans.

Do's
1. Invest in filling the big hole of no Minesweepers!
2. Invest in helicopters.
3. Invest in ASW assets.
4. For short term order 4-6 more Scorpene!
5. Direct all resources to SSN and SSBN fleet development. This is most important.

 

[_Anonymous_]

It's already deployed in US ship.

AN/SEQ-3 Laser Weapon System - Wikipedia

I'm aware of it. It's potency remains limited though. As I've pointed out this will mature in the post 40's -50's timescale. It's the next two decades we need to plan for and cater to.

 

[randomradio]

Please explain how a carrier is going to protect space assets ?? Dude, what are you smoking today ??

A carrier itself cannot. But the CBG will have destroyers which can fire off interceptors. These interceptors can protect satellites from anti-satellite weapons.

And only a CBG can park itself among enemies.

And how is laser going to protect against swarm drones ? If 100 drones are pressed into attack, a CBG will need at least 10s of laser guns to protect itself?? Sounds too far fetched and impractical.

Firstly 100 drones won't even reach the carrier. And a laser will need only 5 seconds for each drone. 100 drones = 500 seconds with just 1 laser. And even if a drone did reach a carrier, the damage it will cause will be negligible to the verge of pointless.

Let's get something out of the way. Sinking a warship is an extremely, extremely difficult task. The US tried it on their carrier a few decades ago. They pummeled the defenceless ship with explosives for four weeks and then finally had to enter the ship themselves and scuttle it. Your 100 drones are gonna be like 100 mosquitos trying to bring down an elephant.

This Is The Only Photo Of A U.S. Navy Supercarrier Being Sunk (Updated)

As I said, to sink a carrier you need heavy weapons. Drones, UCAVs etc as anti-carrier weapons are a waste of time and resources.

 

[Vicky]

Very interesting. Though the article does point out the range as being 500 mtrs. If true, this capability can be upgraded over the years. Interestingly, the article also mentions China, US & Russia as being pioneers in laser development but none of them have weaponised a laser in the fashion the Turks have . This is a developing story. All such incidents would've to be monitored closely for us to arrive at a conclusion on whether lasers can be mounted on ships in the near future for an AD role or in an anti ship role too.

Actually this news is around 2-3 weeks old and the original turkish article had a clear photograph of the crash with a clear hole in its body.

This laser was able to punch a hole in 10mm iron 3km away and a hole in 30mm iron (forgot the distance). It was provided in Turkish defence exhibition pictures. But again the time factor is unknown.

 

[Bali78]

I'm aware of it. It's potency remains limited though. As I've pointed out this will mature in the post 40's -50's timescale. It's the next two decades we need to plan for and cater to.

Correct. It will take decades before these weapons will be really effective.