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
bsl    RE:An interesting bit on carriers, India specifically.   1/18/2004 7:49:15 PM
I tend to agree that putting large, offensive missiles on carriers is a waste. If there really is no trade off between aircraft and the extra weaponry, then the space and resources are better devoted to defensive systems. You can always put even quite large StoS missiles on smaller hulls. Doing so, you create a bit more flexibility in forming your battle groups, as you can include or not include such ships in a CTF, as needed. But, I don't really accept that there is no trade-off involved in the designs. If you don't need space for the kind of really large missiles the Soviets added to some of their early carriers, you can certainly add more space for your air wing. Even if you can't transform a VTOL design into a CTOL design, you can put more VTOLs onto a ship which doesn't have those missiles than one which does. OTOH, I don't think the Soviet VTOL carriers were worth much as carriers against any but a weak enemy. Those planes were just not much good against almost any contemporary CTOL fighters. Given that, perhaps the missile battery made some sense. It created a more credible offensive threat and one which might have been effective before an air strike could reach the carrier.
 
Quote    Reply

Jack Tar    RE:An interesting bit on carriers, India specifically.   1/20/2004 5:47:13 AM
This seemed like the relevant thread for an update on the Admiral Gorshkov/ Indian Navy? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3408437.stm Just thought you'd like to know..
 
Quote    Reply

hybrid    RE:An interesting bit on carriers, India specifically.   1/20/2004 11:25:40 PM
For the most part the Soviet carriers are best termed battle carriers, rather than full out carriers of the type of Ark Royal, or even the US LHA/LHD variants (which are actually nearly the same size as the CDG and Ark Royal and most everyone elses carriers), let alone the super carriers of the US. The soviet era battle carriers were designed so that if necessary they could go off virtually by themselves without fleet resources (which for a long time were sparse). In order to do that the ship had to be armed to the teeth literally with ASM's, AAM's and even ASW and ASW capable helicopters. In essence you were seeing the equivalent of a T-72 or T-80's general flexibility (theoretically) being transposed to warships. Able to theoretically do it all, fly aircraft, combat subs, attack ships or land targets with is missiles, and defend against air threats. However it excelled in NONE of these regards. Cost effectiveness wise....if you had 10 ships in your Navy then this might be the way to go. If you can afford the big bucks then you go the US CBG route.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics