Thaindian News

• Home
• About Us
• News Map
• Photos
• Tags

20 Responses

1. Vijay Says:
   November 16th, 2009 at 9:18 pm

   This news seems to be speculation. Vikramaditya will be in service by 2012. No way India is going to purchase a carrier that will arrive only in 2017 when India’s own carriers will be in service by 2014 and the second one by 2017. They will rather invest the money in second carrier and a third one with nuclear propulsion.

2. Sunil Dhavan Says:
   November 17th, 2009 at 9:53 am

   The Indian defense planners seem completely oblivious to the rapid developments that is going on in the field of precision strike missiles with long range powerful and destructive capabilities.

   The aircraft carrier is a sitting duck to such missiles in future hostile engagements. Plus the huge loss of men that have to go down with it to the sea bottom. Simple as that.

   Only superpowers like USA with tremendous resources and geo-political connections to provide layers and layers of peripheral defense around their aircraft carriers can deploy such sea vessels with some sense of protection from such anti-ship missiles.

   It is a real pity that the Indians are spending such massive amounts of money to get such ships to sail around the world solely for ego boosting purposes.

   What a colossal folly.!

3. kim jong II Says:
   November 19th, 2009 at 1:00 am

   @ Sunil Dhavan

   Dont worry abt chinesse DF ASBM. That is a mere speculation plus China will itself field its own Carrier not very far from today. As for protecting a CBG it always moves around plus there will be many Air Defence ships around it. But consider the prospect in terms of its reach and power. One USN CBG can take out 90% of any asian AF (barring IAF and PLAF). Although it will not carry 90 fighters like the largest USN carriers but if stationed with F 35 or Indian stealth MCA, would give a very potent and long reach to the Indian Navy. I hope this goes through.

4. Suraj Kumar Rai Says:
   November 19th, 2009 at 7:17 am

   I think that India should buy this aircraft carrier.But India should also Make a defence shield around it to save from external threat. In this time India is capable to save its sole aircraft carrier from arial & Missile threat.But it should ensure same safty from submarrines also.Because India Don’t want to loss its any soldier.Thanks,keep it up.

5. chubby Says:
   November 19th, 2009 at 2:01 pm

   Read article on upiasia.com regarding aircraft carrier acquisition strategy by asian countries in security section.this decision to sell one of the Brit carriers will take a long time!

6. Manoj Says:
   November 19th, 2009 at 6:59 pm

   India should focus on large number of silent killers rather than a few loose and exposed targets that could be tracked all the way. Especially in an asymmetric war with neighbors, who plans to joint their hands against India.
   In my opinion, India needs:
   1) More electric and nuclear salient submarines with CBM, ICBMS, and hypersonic missiles for navy
   2) Advanced, portable and all weather radars and missiles for Army
   3) Unmanned attack aircrafts and long range & supersonic cruise missiles for air force.
   4) All the above with a full backing of ABMs and electronic intelligent gathering systems
   If we go after a few big and continuously exposed war machines (e.g. aircraft carries, big aircrafts, heavy tanks), our enemies on both sides can track and pick them easily, leaving India a toothless tiger in the every beginning of a possible war.
   Our procurement team should not go behind what is available or given out, but should collect what is needed for our nation to constantly and continuously keep up the fear of enemy. Look Pak & Chinese strategy of more submarines and fewer ships in their fleets, more cruise and CBMs missiles than tanks and aircrafts. Lesser the number of big machines, lower the number of men needed to operate each one of them and thereby lower chance of detecting them and lest lose at a piece (in the worst case).

7. ram Says:
   November 19th, 2009 at 7:00 pm

   guys . dont worry of spending too much money in buying this aircraft carrier frm britain, whn our own LCA (tejas) or MCA flies in the air, this carrier will also help us to create a fear in our enemy minds.

   without making our armed forces strong we cant except peace in our country.

   JAI HIND……..

8. Dev Says:
   January 26th, 2010 at 12:51 am

   I think India today Needs 3 Carrier Groups to petrol Arabian sea in the west, the Indian Ocean in the south and the Eastern sea lanes in the east. Admiral Groshkov and other two Indigenous small air defense ships (~44,000 tons) will do better with potent fighters like Mig 29k to escort and provide a naval fighter umbrella over three larger carriers (>65,000 tons) with Sukhoi 30s and Su t50 pakfas , who can engage other sea born or land based targets, and even these smaller carriers can also have F35s for anti ship and land attack roles as well. Thus each carrier group with two carriers of different sizes escorted by 6-8 destroyers and Frigates will have a potent force against Pakistani Navy and a affordable force against PLAN who will eventually build large carriers (> 80,000 tons)soon.

9. Sunil Dhavan Says:
   January 26th, 2010 at 7:15 am

   Most miss the important point I made in my earlier post. It is not questioning any need for Aircraft carriers for the Indian Navy. My question is, what is the purpose of big costly sitting ducks on the sea, when precision, long range missiles are available to most countries. Missiles that can sink a large ship with one guided hit. If people want to still ignore this critical fact and talk about need for aircraft carriers, then they are living in a delusional world. The USA is different. It has immense resources to provide layers of defense and also geo-political clout to help protect its navy ships.

10. Kim Jong II Says:
    January 31st, 2010 at 10:31 am

    @ Sunil Dhavan

    Sorry abt replying so late, didnt check this mail account.

    You call A/C as sitting ducks on sea. Can you explain why?

    As far as i know all WW2 era A/C carriers were sunk by the fighters launched from rival A/C. That is the PRECISELY the capability that is needed by India in my opinion.

    Secondly A/C are moving targets at sea. So sinking them with a Ballistic missile or any other form of missiles (Crusie missile, supersonic, missiles) would require aqurate guidance (mid course included). This means enemy assets would have to move in with in 300-500 Km range of the A/C battle group (After locating the A/C).

    Using torpedoes against them would mean coming close to 50 miles or so of the A/C battle group. Not impossible but suicidal for the sub.

    Now consider the advantage. With an A/C you get an Airport on sea. Any enemy would have to devote considerable assets (Air arm, Subs as well as ships) just to locate the battle group and then to deal with it. In future one could deploy armed UCAVs from the A/C too.

    So i dont see how A/C would be useless in the near future.

    Your comments please.

11. Sunil Dhavan Says:
    January 31st, 2010 at 4:25 pm

    WWII type scenario is irrelevant now. BTW- Part of your question you answered yourself. There are cruise missiles that can fly from over 500 miles and hit the target at sea. Satellites provide precise co-ordinates of the carrier, which can be fed into cruise missiles, launched by even small countries using even mobile launchers. Hence, a high value item like an aircraft carrier (2 billion dollars ?) can be taken out with a guided missile costing 2 million dollars. The technology is here right now. The aircraft carrier is now a big white elephant. Thanks to technology empowerment.

12. Kim Jong II Says:
    January 31st, 2010 at 9:10 pm

    @ Sunil Dhawan

    During the Lebanon war, a Saar corvette was hit by a Chinese C 702/802 variant AShM. Pakistanis have C 802s onboard their F 22s.

    During Iran - Iraq war, Israel hit a US frigate with an AShM.

    During Falkland war, HMS Sheffield was sunk using an Exocet AShM.

    Indo Pak 71 war, Indian missile boats sunk Pakistani naval ships using AShM.

    Now consider the AC scenario - An A/C will be protected with

    1) Sats ( TECSAR is already up there)

    2) Dedicated onboard AWACS like Hawkey ( India might buy, currently does not have)

    3) Dedicated ground based naval air assets like P 8

    3) Ground based AWACS ( Phalcon)

    4) 3 Plus dedicated Air Defence ships.

    5) Barak 1 or 2 plus Kashtan Air Defence system (As the last line of defence)

    Now as my examples above point out even the best ships can be sunk, however in my belief AC has a better chance or surviving a missile attack than any other naval Ship. I would bet my money on an A/C to survive.
    Given this scenario is it really justified that India spend 1.5 Billion $$ to buy just 3 Talwar class frigates (Only the 5th option is available to them for their defence from an incoming missile). Further more as my earlier post suggests an A/C can do so much more.

13. Sunil Dhavan Says:
    February 1st, 2010 at 6:39 am

    All your examples cited are old age incidents. I am referring to the new generation anti ship missiles, specifically designed to deal with aircraft carriers. With heavy warheads and has built in intelligence and smart sensors, that direct the missile to hit the vessel at the mid point below the water line. The subsequent massive eplosion create a temporay water cavity underneath that forces the two ends of the ship to break and buckle downwards a complete sinking of the vessel. Guided missile technology is very advanced now, ship specific and cannot be compared to harpoon and exocet models of yesterday warfare. As I said before, aircraft carriers are virtual sitting ducks unless they are in the hands of superpower navies. If you need further information, you may always email me at plutomarkatyahoodotcom

14. Kim Jong II Says:
    February 1st, 2010 at 6:32 pm

    @ Sunil Dhawan

    The Saar corvette was hit on 16th July 2006 (very recent in military parlance). Secondly, Barak missile system is supposed to take on much more advanced AShM than C 702/802.

    HMS Sheffield had an ADVANCED anti aircraft system of that era when it was sunk by the Exocet. Furthermore 2 dumb bombs (yes unguided dumb 1000 LB bombs) dropped from a Skyhawk sunk HMS Coventry in the same war (Meaning the Skyhawks actually flew over Coventry). HMS Coventry was fitted with Sea Dart Anti aircraft system (Quite advanced for that era, yet it wasn’t able to save the ship from the attack)

    The above examples indicate that sinking a ship requires DETECTION of it by the enemy and acting upon it. And the failure of the sunken ship’s INABILITY to comprehend QUICKLY that it is under attack and to take evasive action.

    Now the current generations of Exocet/ Penguin/ RBS/ Harpoons are quite advanced and so is Brahmos. India won’t be buying Harpoons if they were primitive systems of 1970s era. AShMs hitting the water line on the target ships has been a known fact for quite some time so nothing new there. Moreover, counter measures for that do exist.

    Now do explain how an A/C is more vulnerable to these super duper UNKNOWN/ UNTESTED (that you talk about) missile systems than a corvette/ frigate/ minesweeper/ battle cruiser or air defence ship.

    Please provide examples next time you write. Also, provide the names of Pakistani super duper anti aircraft carrier missile systems. Raad and Babur are subsonic cruise missile systems, nothing EXTRAORDINARY there.

    I rest my case.

15. Sunil Dhavan Says:
    February 2nd, 2010 at 10:47 am

    Procuring anti ship missiles like harpoon etc does not mean that large ships like aircraft carriers are immune to being sunk by precision guided cruise missiles. There is no logical link between these two situations. Today’s technology enable satellite detection of even 30 foot objects at sea, let alone a large 40,000 ton aircraft carrier. Not only mere DETECTION but the technology exists for precision latlong vectoring (co-ordinates) from the satellites itself. China has that capability NOW, and also it has cruise missiles. Now if low tech Pakistan is given a cruise missile (from China), all it needs at the time of hostilities are the live co-ordinates information from China, and a technician to feed the numbers into the missile head and then press a button. Even the illiterate Taliban can fire advanced stinger missiles and bring down aircraft and choppers. He only need to pull the trigger in this fire and forget weapon age. Like I said before, many times, the aircraft carrier is a sitting duck - an expensive sitting duck for the Indian navy in times of a future conflict. Also it has very limited tactical or strategic advantage in whatever threat scenario it is expected to operate ( by the naval strategists in Delhi)- as opposed to many smaller, agile corvettes and frigates that are far less expensive to operate and lose at sea. Of course, the a/c has great symbolic value during peace time..it can be used as a show piece to make friendly port of calls, sail pasts during national parades and boost the feel good sensation of most lay people and naval big shots alike.

16. Kim Jong II Says:
    February 2nd, 2010 at 2:29 pm

    The harpoon example I gave because you said earlier that my examples of AShMs sinking ships were old. Whereas I wanted to convey that whichever AShM sunk whatever ships, the AShms used had contemporary technologies of the day on them. And so did the target ships. The difference between the victor and the lost ship was due to TACTICS more than anything else. As for cruise missiles, they have been there with almost every country worth its salt. However, except Russia, India and Japan, rest of the world has gone for subsonic cruise missile.

    There are open source papers available on the net that list the causes of the Saar hit as well as the sinking of HMS ships during Falkland wars. Read them to understand what I am saying. In gist, it was not the sophistication of the AShMs which made the difference but factors like detection, training, maintenance, command structure, perception etc of the sailors onboard the target ships.

    My earlier posts clearly indicate that A/C is better protected against aerial threats than any other type of ships. Now whether the enemy has sat guided missile system or not, what makes you think any other ship stands a better chance than an A/C against such weapons. You do know that India has already deployed advanced Israeli spy sats which would pick up the launch of such missiles. You also know that neither Pakistan nor China has any Supersonic Cruise missiles. So an Indian Carrier (under optimum conditions) would be better prepared to deal with such threats vis a vis an Indian frigate/destroyer (under optimum conditions).

    The Taliban example is exactly what I am saying. If a Taliban terrorist were to detect 1 fighter, any small but fast moving aircraft and launched a stinger and another Taliban detects and launches a stinger against a high flying (tactics of the plane) Phalcon protected by 5-10 MKIs, which one do you think has a better chance of surviving. If everything else remains same, then I would bet the Phalcon will survive. Even though as a last resort, an MKI might have to be sacrificed to save the Phalcon.

    China with this technology that you are privy to, which can bring down an A/C. Provide the name of this weapon and make sure it’s not a model displayed at some fair. So far, the info that you have provided is nothing new even a Tomahawk in gulf war 1 (fired from 2000 Km) hit its target with pin point accuracy.
    China which is at least a decade behind Nato Tech (US/ Europe has an arms embargo on China after T. Square incident, Russia has provided some valuable tech and so has Israel but nothing cutting edge) has developed such weapon. Frankly, I don’t buy that. The planners in Delhi, I believe know better than you do. And please don’t mention DF series ASBM (read my very first post for that) unless you know some secrets that no one else does!!! I would also ask you not to make sweeping statements but to provide examples.

    I still believe a 2 billion A/C offers much more offensive firepower and defensive capabilities than a 500 million frigate. I give up now

17. Sunil Dhavan Says:
    February 2nd, 2010 at 8:01 pm

    Look, you are entitled to your opinions. I am, and still is, under the impression that the focus of this discussion is about - ” whether an aircraft carrier would be an expensive liability (sitting duck) to a non-super power navy ” - under the circumstances of today’s (next 20 years or more) warfare technology. I am not concerned about the a/c’s fire power potential, its reach, theater or strategic advantage, its offensive capabilities in comparison to other vessel types or about past examples of conflict where a/c were involved or deployed. They are irrelevant to this discussion.

    I am also not saying that smaller vessels are immune to missile attack either, except that they are less expensive (human lives included) than an a/c, if sunk during hostile operations. Every reply that I have given here have focused only on the heavy liability of an a/c if operated by a non-super power navy.

    Carriers are expected to have a operational span of 25 years and during that time, as long as it is peace time mode, all is just fine. Just pay the huge maintenance and operational costs every year via the allocated budget and be done with it. But then the question still comes up..payment for what ?. A potential sitting duck that has its fate written on it during future hostilities ?

    Stick to the discussion point. Which is - whether an a/c would be a sitting duck in future hostile conditions or warfare. Almost most of the points that you have elaborated upon here are irrelevant and outside this point of discussion.

18. Sunil Dhavan Says:
    February 2nd, 2010 at 9:31 pm

    U.S. Navy Aircraft Carriers Vulnerable to SS-N-27B Sizzler Anti-Ship Missile
    April 8, 2008

    http://www.defensereview.com/us-navy-aircraft-carriers-vulnerable-to-ss-n-27b-sizzler-anti-ship-missile/

    The Russian-made 3M-54E/SS-N-27B Sizzler subsonic/supersonic anti-ship cruise missile (ASCM) currently being employed and deployed by China, and, it seems, Iran, can be launched from both submarines and surface ships (and possibly aircraft).

    Orville Hanson, a 38-year U.S. Naval weapons systems evaluator calls Sizzler a “carrier-destroying weapon.” “Take out the carriers” and China “can walk into Taiwan,” he says.

    The Sizzler missile is “a very sophisticated piece of hardware and we are currently not as capable of defending against that missile as I would like.” In other words, we most likely can’t defend our carriers against it at the moment.

    The latest ship-killing unmanned weapon systems like
    supercavitating torpedoes and supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles
    being produced and/or developed by other countries that can probably
    sink the CVN-21, even if it is protected by its own highly-advanced,
    highly-lethal systems like fighter aircraft (primarily F/A-18s), ASW
    (Anti-Submarine Warfare i.e. “sub-hunting”) aircraft, the Raytheon.

    And, then there’s the Russian-made 3M-54E / SSN-27 Sizzler supersonic cruise missile being employed/deployed by China and (reportedly) Iran’s Kilo subs, which is currently giving our Naval commanders a real headache in trying to figure out a way to defend our carriers against it. Major problem.

19. Kim Kong II Says:
    February 8th, 2010 at 3:19 am

    GQM-163A Coyote SSST (Supersonic Sea-Skimming Target), which is a 31 foot long, 800 kg (1700 pound) missile with a combination solid fuel rocket and ramjet propulsion. It has a range of 110 kilometers and, because of the ramjet, a top speed of over 2,600 kilometers an hour. The Coyote is meant to give U.S. warships a realistic simulation of an attack by similar Russian cruise missiles (like the Klub.)

    Coyote came to be, in response to more countries arming themselves with high speed anti-ship missiles. In particular, there is fear that the Russian 3M54 (also known as the SS-N-27, Sizzler or Klub) anti-ship missiles used on Chinese subs, are unstoppable. But maybe not. India, (another major customer for the Klub) has feuded with the Russians over repeated failures of the Klub during six test firings three years ago. The missiles were fired off the Russian coast, using an Indian Kilo class submarines, INS Sindhuvijay. That boat went to Russia in 2006 for upgrades. India refused to pay for the upgrades, or take back the sub, until Russia fixed the problems with the missiles (which it eventually did).

    I would say the Americans know exactly how to stop the Sizzler now.

    As for the Indians, well if they use it then they should know how to defeat it as well.

20. Kim Kong II Says:
    February 8th, 2010 at 4:16 am

    http://www.periscope.ucg.com/mdb-smpl/weapons/minetorp/torpedo/w0004768.shtml

    “Despite the novelty of the supercavitation system, the Shkval has significant shortcomings. It has a very short range compared to standard torpedoes; unguided variants must travel in a straight line, making effective targeting very difficult. Secondly, because sound travels much faster under water, it is thought that the Shkval would be highly detectable upon launch. Later versions with guidance and homing systems that require the torpedo to slow down to be able to operate are vulnerable to the same countermeasures as standard torpedoes, thus eliminating the weapon’s one advantage. According to some reports, Russia is experimenting with a wire-guidance system for the weapon, but this is a project fraught with difficulties.”

    Russian ones range is —-

    Range 3.5 nm (4.0 mi, 6.4 km)
    Shkval-E
    range
    launch 3.8 nm (4.4 mi, 7.0 km)
    cruise 5.4 nm (6.2 mi, 10.0 km)
    minimum 0.3 nm (0.3 mi, 0.5 km)

    USA has worked on SuperCavs too. Germany currently makes some. Big difference is they can be GUIDED.

    Agian i would say USN would know SuperCav’s limitations all too well.

Leave a Comment

Name

Mail (will not be published)

Website

Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.

Notify me of follow-up comments via e-mail

RSS feed for comments on The British warship that India wants: quantum leap on the high seas