Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Naval Air Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: An interesting bit on carriers, India specifically.
Crusader    11/7/2003 7:15:27 AM
Aircraft Carriers: An Indian Introspection By Dean Mathew*  http://www.ciaonet.org/olj/sa/sa_00mad01.html Introduction Aircraft Carriers made their debut towards the end of World War I and evolved over a period of time as a priceless tool of power projection symbolised by the magnificent Super Carrier Battle Groups of the United States Navy. These products of impressive technological achievement are often viewed as the ultimate measure of a nation?s will and credibility and the ?status symbol? of the superpower, the United States of America. Part of the legend and aura around the aircraft carriers stem from their history. Carriers were at the centre of some epic battles fought in World War II. Then, carriers were entirely oriented towards offensive air power and until a few decades ago, the aircraft complement that could be launched from the deck of a large carrier could outmatch the complete air forces of most countries. The end of World War II saw the United States as the only major power left with a carrier fleet to be reckoned with. Others like the UK opted to downsize their holding, primarily due to economic and political compulsions. In the Soviet Union, the initial attempts in building aircraft carriers came to light with the launching of Moskva in the year 1965 though it did not carry any fixed wing aircraft. The logical culmination of this Soviet dream was the laying of the 75,000 ton nuclear-powered aircraft carrier in 1988. The construction was never completed owing to the political turbulence of the early 90?s and a paucity of funds. The unfinished ship was scrapped after 4 years. Since World War II, the US has remained the only country to have built and operated heavy, nuclear-powered aircraft carriers with a complement of nearly 90-100 aircraft on board. Over a period of time, from the cold war days to post-cold war days, these super carriers have been the American leaders? preferred military means of carrying out political objectives across the globe. The post World War II decades also saw the emergence of a few regional navies, mostly schooled in the western traditions. Many of them considered a sea-based air arm essential for their perceived roles and proceeded to acquire medium-sized aircraft carriers either by building their own or mostly by buying post-war surplus disposed of by the Royal Navy. The Indian Navy, too, acquired its first aircraft carrier in 1961 and continues to possess a carrier-based air arm.   Aim This paper aims to explode myths and explore facts surrounding sea-borne aviation in a historical framework and attempts a fresh look against the backdrop of the likely Indian security compulsions in the early 21st century.   Background It may not be entirely incidental that today the image of an aircraft carrier is synonymous with that of a nuclear-powered, nuclear capable Nimitz class super carrier with an impressive fleet around it. These carriers had a legitimate role in the execution of the US global strategy during the cold war days. The rationale for a 15-carrier navy during the Reagan era was the perceived offensive operations against the Soviet Union on a global scale envisioned in the US strategy. The open ocean warfighting principle of the US Navy?s maritime strategy was primarily focused on a powerful and threatening Soviet Union with a world-wide naval capability. At the same time, the role and utility of these carriers in a direct confrontation with the Soviet Union, which maintained more than 2000 frontline fighters in their air defence forces alone or Power Projection missions in the Third World countries, could never escape intense public and institutional debate even in the US. 1With the demise of the Soviet Union and the end of the cold war, the scenarios will never be the same again. The post-cold war US Naval strategy will have its focus shifted from a perceived global threat to likely regional challenges, interests and opportunities. In all probability, the most likely subjects will be the littoral* regions of the world and the Carrier Battle Groups(CBGs) will continue to represent US commitment to project power into these regions. Most of the post-World War II medium aircraft carriers of the second-rung navies retired without seeing much action with the exception of the Indo-Pak war(1971) and the Falklands(1982). Notably, there are cases like those of France, Italy, Spain and Thailand which have decided to acquire new aircraft carriers during the last two decades. Also, there is speculation about China, Germany and Japan going in for aircraft carriers in the near future. It is more than five decades since a carrier faced another carrier or a fleet out at sea. The same goes about having faced a respectable airforce. For that matter, only once during the entire post-world war period, the carrier-borne aircraft were tasked to provide air defence cover to own fleet (Falklands, 1982). Barring this exception, mo
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
Final Historian    RE:An interesting bit on carriers, India specifically.   11/8/2003 9:07:21 PM
This was a great read. But I have a question. Has China already started working on an aircraft carrier? It seemed to me that such a fact was suggested by the article.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    RE:An interesting bit on carriers, India specifically.   12/4/2003 12:16:37 AM
china still is rumoured to have the old australian aircraft carrier (hmas melbourne) intact as part of its build assessment. it hasn't been actice for 20 years, but it also apparently hasn't been broken up - the reason for its initial purchase. there have been on-off rumours about them building their own for some time.
 
Quote    Reply

Crusader    RE:An interesting bit on carriers, India specifically.   12/4/2003 8:19:03 AM
>>china still is rumoured to have the old australian aircraft carrier (hmas melbourne) intact as part of its build assessment. it hasn't been actice for 20 years, but it also apparently hasn't been broken up - the reason for its initial purchase. there have been on-off rumours about them building their own for some time .<< There was also much discussion about the purchase of Varyag, as I doubt they will rebuild it, but may use it as a test mule.
 
Quote    Reply

Sandreckoner    RE:An interesting bit on carriers, India specifically.   1/14/2004 5:45:59 AM
China is still studying the feasibility of carrier production, especially with regard to cost. The finances simply aren't there, even for a small carrier, at the moment. Even with PPP valuations and low domestic costs, China simply doesn't have the cash to engage on large-scale construction of carriers, much less integration, staffing and developing/acquiring appropriate aircraft in sufficient numbers. They've got a lot they need to do militarily simply to bring themselves within a few generations conventionally of the west, and that's going to cost them a lot of money in and of itself. It will be a long, long while before China is floating medium-to-large sized carriers, and they'll probably never float them in significant numbers.
 
Quote    Reply

Siddar    RE:An interesting bit on carriers, India specifically.   1/15/2004 4:00:37 PM
Nice overview but I disagree with its desire to place defensive weapons on Aircraft Carriers at expense of Planes. Carriers exist to carry Aircraft why would you give up plane space on your Carrier for weapons you can carry on suport ships? You reduce your ability to use Aircraft to defend your Carrier by doing that also you reduce your ability to use Carrier Aircraft in ofensive actions.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aus    An interesting bit on carriers, India specifically. - Siddar   1/15/2004 5:28:37 PM
I think you'll find that its a legacy of Soviet/Russian doctrinal influence The Russians had a philosophy of cementing as much weaponry as possible on their platforms for the saturated first strike mentality. Look at Indian destroyer designs, they are heavily influenced by russian shipbuilding philosophies of disproportionate firepower compared to a western style platform.
 
Quote    Reply

Siddar    RE:An interesting bit on carriers, India specifically. - Siddar   1/15/2004 7:07:44 PM
Yes the Soviet influnce on the design is there but should India blindly follow that influence? The concept of Soviets of merging a Cruiser and a Carrier is wrong in my view the ships dont reach there full potential as Carriers. Why build a Cruiser Carrier when you can build two ships that will do the job better then a single ship for only a marginal increase of cost and manpower? The Soviets had a solid doctrine for a non Carrier navy once you reach the point of wanting a Carrier Soviet doctrine becomes useless. The post talked about Russians striping the Cruiser weapons off there Carrier so it seems the Russians have moved beyond the misguided Soviet Carrier doctrine.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aus    India specifically. - Siddar   1/15/2004 7:24:38 PM
I agree, I think saturated offense has changed to precison and qualitative. The need to build a contemporary "battleship" has passed long ago. Without meaning to offend any Indian posters, it demonstrates to me a hiccup in the naval warfighting doctrine to persist in building the penultimate heavy hitter within each class of vessel. It's very hard to retro fit stealth features on a floating "hedgehog" sans missileer ship. I don't think the Russians ever really got a handle on managing a carrier battle group. Hence their passion for filling up a carrier with weaponry at the expence of having more capable fixed wing elements and/or rotors in what would have been precious space. The de Gaulle and the Ark Royal would be worthwhile looking at for them to see how issues of fuel bunkerage, balance, weapons bunkers etc are used in a different vessel. It will be interesting to see what changes are required for them to have a symbiotic task force in place with such a different type of vessel.
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege    RE:An interesting bit on carriers, India specifically.   1/17/2004 6:33:04 PM
I don't think that mixing carrier and cruiser feature is necessary a bad idea.It depend purpose and architecture of carrier.Russian cruiser were with limited STOVL planes.A big antiship missile like Yakont is 3 t and maybe 6 t with is container.So having two hundred on board cost 600 t only (CDG have more than 6000 t for aircraft fuel and munitions).It is not good if it is on the deck, but below, why not, it free your limited air group for airdefense and reco.And instantaneous power is bigger than a bigger carrier and more reactive.And a 30 000 t ship with light armour is much much more difficult to sink than a 4000 tons.
 
Quote    Reply

Nanheyangrouchuan    RE:An interesting bit on carriers, India specifically.   1/18/2004 3:01:55 AM
China is building a 44 K ton aircraft carrier in the northern part of the Huang Pu river - see Jane's.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics