Aircraft Carriers II (Closed to posting)
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
- Status
Kurt
Junior Member
Re: Does india really need aircraft carriers
The question implies an obvious answer, but looking at it from another angle, it's about future perspectives.
You won't have battled hunger successfully before your economy has high tech components and your military enhances your global negotiation ability. India is doing a longterm know-how acquisition program and it's never too early to start with the most complicated tool, a navy, that makes India a major seapower.
In GDP spending India is not overdoing the military spending like the USA. Just look what happened to India when their navy was not capable, the British Raj that during the middle period systematically stalled Indian progress and destroyed know-how in order to center profit elsewhere, like the British Islands, and even there only for a fraction of the population.
In today's world, navies are the most likely service arm to have a decisive clash that decides the future of a nation by regulated access to the seas. No capable navy means little chances to defend your economic access, hunger becomes very much a weapon that can be used against you because the navies always defended the ability for food imports in times of crisis. And you lack the capability to have people produce the devices that give your economy the money to not only feed, but well nourish your population. Every investor knows that you can't bet on infinite growth, but must take safety precautions.
The question implies an obvious answer, but looking at it from another angle, it's about future perspectives.
You won't have battled hunger successfully before your economy has high tech components and your military enhances your global negotiation ability. India is doing a longterm know-how acquisition program and it's never too early to start with the most complicated tool, a navy, that makes India a major seapower.
In GDP spending India is not overdoing the military spending like the USA. Just look what happened to India when their navy was not capable, the British Raj that during the middle period systematically stalled Indian progress and destroyed know-how in order to center profit elsewhere, like the British Islands, and even there only for a fraction of the population.
In today's world, navies are the most likely service arm to have a decisive clash that decides the future of a nation by regulated access to the seas. No capable navy means little chances to defend your economic access, hunger becomes very much a weapon that can be used against you because the navies always defended the ability for food imports in times of crisis. And you lack the capability to have people produce the devices that give your economy the money to not only feed, but well nourish your population. Every investor knows that you can't bet on infinite growth, but must take safety precautions.
Last edited:
Re: Does india really need aircraft carriers
They need a lot of resources to continue building their infrastructure and society to help lift their standard of living, and the sea lanes to those resources is definitely in their national interests to be defended.
They do have strong enemies.
So yes, I would say they are definitely justified. But what you or I think is not really going to matter. What the Indian leaders and their people as whole, who elect those leaders, is what matters.
And as I said, right now, they are building them...and rather nice ones at that speaking realtively regarding the rest of the world.
Clearly, the Indian leadership thinks so. They have one old one, are receiving a newly refurbished on that is much more capable, and are building two more. They'll decom the Viraat and be left with three.
They need a lot of resources to continue building their infrastructure and society to help lift their standard of living, and the sea lanes to those resources is definitely in their national interests to be defended.
They do have strong enemies.
So yes, I would say they are definitely justified. But what you or I think is not really going to matter. What the Indian leaders and their people as whole, who elect those leaders, is what matters.
And as I said, right now, they are building them...and rather nice ones at that speaking realtively regarding the rest of the world.
navyreco
Senior Member
by , on Flickr
by , on Flickr
CottageLV
Banned Idiot
Re: Does india really need aircraft carriers
India definitely needs it, as all major powers need it. If order to protect your overseas interests, you need a brute force to act as protection. Remember the Galaxy incident in the 90's? US accused Chinese merchant cargo ship, Galaxy, of shipping banned missile parts to the Middle East and stopped it in the middle of the ocean, later forcefully searched it. If it was the a Soviet ship in the 80s, the USN wouldn't have dared to do that.
Since this is a forum regarding Chinese matters, then let's use China, which is a prime example. In order to protect its claimed territories in the South China Sea and to confront the Japanese over disputed territories in the West Pacific, China needs aircraft carriers to project their military forces into areas where land based jets cannot reach. The escort mission in Somalia is also a great example. Without capable ships, China would not be able to protect its merchant fleets off the coast off Somalia and would lose a lot of business.
It is also the same for India. It has historical hatred/conflict with Pakistan. The relationship is constantly going up and down, with conflicts happening every few years. Sometimes it even escalates into all-out war. In order to prevent attack from the sea and to defeat Pakistan, especially to attack Pakistan's territory from the sea, powerful carrier groups are needed. Bad relationships with Bangladesh and potential conflict with Sri Lanka all indicate India's need for aircraft carriers.
However, India is very fortunate to have only small and weak neighbors. The only powerful potential enemy is China, which isn't really that big of a problem. The only dispute was over some useless land over the Himalayas and the two countries have no age-deep hatred, like between India and Pakistan or between China/Korea and Japan. The problem over the Himalayan territory is not easily solved, but also not severe enough to make two countries wanting to bite each other's throat.
On the other hand, China is in a very messed up location. It has the mighty polar bear in the north, US 7th fleet to the east, Japanese fleet to the north east and few of the biggest modern cruisers/destroyers from the South Korean navy. The Australian navy is pretty close, able to intervene any time. It also has territorial disputes with at least 10 countries in the south China sea. Although they are not powerful, the territory is indeed hell of a distance away, very hard to reach.
If China lives with American attitude of protecting security at all costs and guaranteed of winning, China would need 30 carrier groups. Of course that's not possible.
Put all arguments aside, such as those of China threat, fund issues, and all etc, looking purely at strategic needs, China needs at least 15 carrier groups, with 3 regularly patrolling in the South China sea, 5 in the West pacific, two in the Indian ocean, the rest in port being serviced.
India definitely needs it, as all major powers need it. If order to protect your overseas interests, you need a brute force to act as protection. Remember the Galaxy incident in the 90's? US accused Chinese merchant cargo ship, Galaxy, of shipping banned missile parts to the Middle East and stopped it in the middle of the ocean, later forcefully searched it. If it was the a Soviet ship in the 80s, the USN wouldn't have dared to do that.
Since this is a forum regarding Chinese matters, then let's use China, which is a prime example. In order to protect its claimed territories in the South China Sea and to confront the Japanese over disputed territories in the West Pacific, China needs aircraft carriers to project their military forces into areas where land based jets cannot reach. The escort mission in Somalia is also a great example. Without capable ships, China would not be able to protect its merchant fleets off the coast off Somalia and would lose a lot of business.
It is also the same for India. It has historical hatred/conflict with Pakistan. The relationship is constantly going up and down, with conflicts happening every few years. Sometimes it even escalates into all-out war. In order to prevent attack from the sea and to defeat Pakistan, especially to attack Pakistan's territory from the sea, powerful carrier groups are needed. Bad relationships with Bangladesh and potential conflict with Sri Lanka all indicate India's need for aircraft carriers.
However, India is very fortunate to have only small and weak neighbors. The only powerful potential enemy is China, which isn't really that big of a problem. The only dispute was over some useless land over the Himalayas and the two countries have no age-deep hatred, like between India and Pakistan or between China/Korea and Japan. The problem over the Himalayan territory is not easily solved, but also not severe enough to make two countries wanting to bite each other's throat.
On the other hand, China is in a very messed up location. It has the mighty polar bear in the north, US 7th fleet to the east, Japanese fleet to the north east and few of the biggest modern cruisers/destroyers from the South Korean navy. The Australian navy is pretty close, able to intervene any time. It also has territorial disputes with at least 10 countries in the south China sea. Although they are not powerful, the territory is indeed hell of a distance away, very hard to reach.
If China lives with American attitude of protecting security at all costs and guaranteed of winning, China would need 30 carrier groups. Of course that's not possible.
Put all arguments aside, such as those of China threat, fund issues, and all etc, looking purely at strategic needs, China needs at least 15 carrier groups, with 3 regularly patrolling in the South China sea, 5 in the West pacific, two in the Indian ocean, the rest in port being serviced.
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
Re: Does india really need aircraft carriers
yes but India also uses these weapons to threaten other countrys in its neighbourhood, its one thing having them to secure ur interests but another when they start violating other nations waters and has fought wars with all its neighbours multiple times
a country which has 700,000 soldiers in a sovergien nation illegal under UN mandate should not be allowed to make carriers
yes but India also uses these weapons to threaten other countrys in its neighbourhood, its one thing having them to secure ur interests but another when they start violating other nations waters and has fought wars with all its neighbours multiple times
a country which has 700,000 soldiers in a sovergien nation illegal under UN mandate should not be allowed to make carriers
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: Does india really need aircraft carriers
This is definitely a conversation that should stop.
No nation has a monopoly on virtue and corruption comes in many forms in different places, be it bribes demanded from state officials in some countries to a whole generation being held to ransom by reckless bankers in another.
Back to Indian Carriers please
This is definitely a conversation that should stop.
No nation has a monopoly on virtue and corruption comes in many forms in different places, be it bribes demanded from state officials in some countries to a whole generation being held to ransom by reckless bankers in another.
Back to Indian Carriers please
escobar
Brigadier
Re: Does india really need aircraft carriers
15 carrier groups!!! It is too much.
I would say 6 to begin: one patrolling SCS to malaca straits, another one patrolling from the indian ocean to the Persian Gulf, one in the first island chain and the other in port.
15 carrier groups!!! It is too much.
I would say 6 to begin: one patrolling SCS to malaca straits, another one patrolling from the indian ocean to the Persian Gulf, one in the first island chain and the other in port.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status