harryRIEDL
New Member
Would you care to provide details of the Soviet carrier task forces in 1971? Bearing in mind of course that Kiev didn't put to sea for another five years...
they could have sent a MOSKAVA couldn't they
Indian navy running into carrier problems....
- Thread starter crazyinsane105
- Start date
they could have sent a MOSKAVA couldn't they
they could have sent a MOSKAVA couldn't they
They could... But do you think a helicopter cruiser with seakeeping issues would have given any US carrier commander even one sleepless night? Let alone challenge a CVSG? In 71 US CV air wings were predominantly Strike oriented rather than multi role as now so a Moskva with escorting missile cruisers would not have posed a significant threat to the USN in the Indian Ocean back then. Care to place bets on who would win that encounter? Kamov Hormone A's versus F-4J Phantoms? The 'Great Indian Ocean Turkey Shoot'....:nono:
ff
The deck was sure enough stacked in favor of the USN...
The strike aircraft avaliable on the "Big E" then was...
VF-143 Pukin Dogs (12) F-4J
VF-142 Ghostriders (12) F-4J
VA-97 Warhawks (12) A-7E
VA-27 Royal Maces (12) A-7E
VA-196 Main Battery (12)A-6A + 3 tankers
ff That would be 60 strike aircraft with Vietnam War combat harden pilots. Think about it..
The off topic sign is a hint gents.
Yea I know I'm guilty..The PLAN has never operated a real AC before, but they did acquire the HMAS Melbourne hulk in 1985. I'm pretty sure they had a good look at it when it was being scrapped in Dalian, though at the time PLAN was in no condition to build or operate a carrier.
To best of my knowledge, in 1965 the Indian carrier was under refit in dry dock?
Regarding the incident in 1971, the Indian navy at least stood up and force the US government to reach a decision, in which they decided to back off and not escalate the confrontation. Militarily I doubt the Indian Navy could've defeated the USN, but it was a partial political victory to the Indians, at the cost of US-Indian relations for 30+ years.
I think the Russians sent some submarines as a show of force, the gesture was well received by the Indians, as their arms procurement shifted toward USSR/Russia afterwards. To date no other democracy has bought as much Russian armaments as India.
-----
Going back to the original topic, I think if not for the 1971 incident and US backing of Pakistan, it's very possible that India would've looked to EU or US for a carrier instead of Russia.
Things are changing though, with shifting political situation we've seen India opening to US armament imports. The USS Trenton (INS Jalashva) purchase could mean more ex-USN ships sold to India in the future. USS Nashville (LPD-13) has already been offered to India.
Last edited:
The Indian Navy did procure the HMS Hermes (Viraat) from the UK in the 1980's. The IN should have gone for Foch/Clemenceau instead of the Gorshkov. I know that there is not alot of used aircraft carrier market out there but they picked the worst of the two options.
I wonder if the UK/France is up for letting the IN in the CVF program.
Edit: 1000th post
I really wouldn't see why not as India has purchased weapons from these two countries before. It can also pave the way for future weapon systems and benefit all parties.
Indianfighter
Junior Member
This partly regards the delay in the construction of India's indigenous aircraft carrier, the Advanced Defence Ship (ADS).
India's blue water dreams may have to wait
By Sudha Ramachandran
BANGALORE - Even as the Indian Navy is making its mark projecting power in waters far beyond its shores, its ambitions seem likely to be impeded by delays in a string of big-ticket projects involving new acquisitions. Besides the delay in the delivery of a refurbished Russian aircraft carrier, the construction in India of an indigenous carrier has been hit by rough weather.
Under a deal that India signed with Russia in January 2004, the 44,570-ton Admiral Gorshkov, which is being refurbished at Russia's Shevmash shipyard, was to be ready for induction into
the Indian Navy as the Indian Naval Ship (INS) Vikramaditya by next August. But Russian engineers apparently underestimated the length of cabling required to refit the aircraft carrier and are now unable to meet the delivery deadline. It will take an additional two years for the carrier to be ready for induction.
Meanwhile, another prestigious project is running late.
India is constructing a 37,500-ton aircraft carrier at the Cochin Shipyard on its west coast. The first indigenous aircraft carrier to be made in India was to enter service in 2012. However, it now appears that the earliest it will be ready is 2015. The project is running late "on almost all fronts", according to a report in The Times of India.
The 252-meter-long carrier will have two runways, a landing strip with three arrester wires (used to decelerate and stop aircraft), and a flight deck of about a hectare. It will carry 160 officers and 1,400 sailors and accommodate 12 MiG-29Ks, eight Tejas Light Combat Aircraft, and 10 helicopters.
When ready for induction, the indigenous aircraft carrier will be a feather in India's cap. But now it is giving Indian shipbuilders and the navy sleepless nights. The project has been up against formidable problems from the beginning.
The indigenous aircraft-carrier project received the government's green light in 2003. In April 2005, the symbolic cutting of steel took place marking the formal start of the project, but it was not until 19 months later that construction actually began.
Construction has been crippled by procurement woes. There were problems procuring 20,000 tonnes of high-quality steel for the carrier until India's largest steel manufacturer, Steel Authority of India Ltd (SAIL), stepped in. Then came a delay in procuring the bulb bars.
These problems were subsequently sorted out, but new ones have cropped up since, contributing to further delays. The keel of the carrier was to be laid this October, but this has been put off for at least another year, the Times of India report said. This will push up the project cost "substantially".
"The delay in delivery has thrown India's plans into some turbulence," an officer in the navy's western command told Asia Times Online.
Since the decommissioning of India's first aircraft carrier INS Vikrant in 1997, the country has been left with just one carrier, INS Viraat. But Viraat (formerly HMS Hermes of Britain's Royal Navy), which was commissioned in May 1987, is aging. It underwent a major refit in the Cochin Shipyard from 1999 to 2001.
The refit was not just a facelift; it included upgrades to the carrier's propulsion systems, its radar suite, communications systems, and weapon systems. The result was that the aging warhorse - the 50-year old INS Viraat is the oldest aircraft carrier in commission in the world - received another lease on life for about 10 years.
India's purchase of the Admiral Gorshkov and the go-ahead for the construction of the indigenous aircraft carrier were aimed at finding replacements for INS Viraat before its decommissioning in 2010-12. The Indian Navy was hoping that INS Vikramaditya would be operational by 2009, well ahead of the Viraat's retirement.
According to this rather ambitious timetable, the Vikramaditya would join the Viraat and the two would be joined by the indigenous aircraft carrier in 2012.
"It did seem that the Indian Navy's dream of operating three aircraft carriers would be realized, albeit for a short time," the navy officer said. "With delivery schedules going haywire, that seems a bit unlikely in the near future."
The Indian Navy's force projections for the future have long envisaged the operation of three aircraft-carrier groups as essential for the protection of the country's maritime interests.
There are indications now that INS Viraat will have to soldier on for a few more years. In January, navy chief Admiral Sureesh Mehta indicated that the Viraat could remain in active service beyond 2010-12. "We are confident that she is in good condition for another seven years of service," he told the Indian Express.
The carrier's commanding officer, Captain Girish Luthra, said at that time: "The ship is in excellent condition. It is up to the Naval Headquarters to decide how long we use her, but I can say she is in top form."
Indeed, for its age INS Viraat appears to be in fighting trim. In June, it went on a goodwill voyage to several ports in Southeast Asia. Next month, it will be the star of the Indian fleet participating in the five-nation naval exercise in the Bay of Bengal.
Although naval officials are proud of INS Viraat's fitness, they are nonetheless annoyed with the perpetual delays in acquisitions.
"We are making do with a very old aircraft carrier," the naval officer said, adding that "INS Viraat is in fine condition, but only for an aircraft carrier of its age. Our ambitions cannot be realized if the navy finds itself constantly hamstrung by delays in procurement."
Meanwhile, India is looking to induct another aircraft carrier by 2017. This May, Defense Minister A K Antony indicated that this would depend on progress on construction of the indigenous carrier. The order for a third carrier, Antony said, would be placed only after construction of the indigenous vessel progresses "beyond a certain range".
It is not just delayed delivery of aircraft carriers that is annoying navy officials. The Scorpene submarine project - the acquisition of six Scorpene subs is part of India's "Project 75", which envisages the building of 24 submarines by 2025-30 - too is running late.
It took several years for India to negotiate the deal for the acquisition and building of Scorpene submarines. The Cabinet Committee for Security sat on the matter for two years before giving its assent. Finally in 2005, the deal for construction of six Scorpene subs was signed.
Under the deal, India's Mazagon Docks Ltd was to deliver one submarine a year beginning in 2012, but two years on, construction of the vessels is yet to start. Construction of a submarine takes a minimum of six years. This means that Mazagon Docks will not meet the 2012 delivery deadline.
What is worrying naval officials is that India's fleet of 16 diesel-electric submarines (10 Russian Kilo-class ships, four German HDWs and two Foxtrots) is aging and several are due for retirement. "By 2012 we will be left with only nine submarines, with more retirements to follow," the naval officer said.
In 2005, India's then naval chief, Admiral Arun Prakash, warned that India would have to begin building new submarines immediately to be able to replace the ones being retired. Several of India's neighbors were acquiring subs and "India seemed to be the odd man out", he said. Two years on, his warning has not been heeded.
Indian naval officials blame the political establishment and the bureaucracy for crippling the navy's modernization program. Indeed, almost all defense purchases have been mired in scandal. Contracts negotiated by one government have been renegotiated by the next, ostensibly to get a better deal but really for kickbacks. The officials have said acquisitions are being delayed with deals coming under the scanner for corruption.
The navy cannot, however, absolve itself of blame. Senior officers and their kin have been found leaking information and/or receiving bribes in connection with defense procurements. This has been the case with the Scorpene deal, for instance.
India's navy has great ambitions and plans to achieve them, but the hardware to do so is lacking. It seems a classic case of the spirit being strong but the flesh weak.
India's blue water dreams may have to wait
By Sudha Ramachandran
BANGALORE - Even as the Indian Navy is making its mark projecting power in waters far beyond its shores, its ambitions seem likely to be impeded by delays in a string of big-ticket projects involving new acquisitions. Besides the delay in the delivery of a refurbished Russian aircraft carrier, the construction in India of an indigenous carrier has been hit by rough weather.
Under a deal that India signed with Russia in January 2004, the 44,570-ton Admiral Gorshkov, which is being refurbished at Russia's Shevmash shipyard, was to be ready for induction into
the Indian Navy as the Indian Naval Ship (INS) Vikramaditya by next August. But Russian engineers apparently underestimated the length of cabling required to refit the aircraft carrier and are now unable to meet the delivery deadline. It will take an additional two years for the carrier to be ready for induction.
Meanwhile, another prestigious project is running late.
India is constructing a 37,500-ton aircraft carrier at the Cochin Shipyard on its west coast. The first indigenous aircraft carrier to be made in India was to enter service in 2012. However, it now appears that the earliest it will be ready is 2015. The project is running late "on almost all fronts", according to a report in The Times of India.
The 252-meter-long carrier will have two runways, a landing strip with three arrester wires (used to decelerate and stop aircraft), and a flight deck of about a hectare. It will carry 160 officers and 1,400 sailors and accommodate 12 MiG-29Ks, eight Tejas Light Combat Aircraft, and 10 helicopters.
When ready for induction, the indigenous aircraft carrier will be a feather in India's cap. But now it is giving Indian shipbuilders and the navy sleepless nights. The project has been up against formidable problems from the beginning.
The indigenous aircraft-carrier project received the government's green light in 2003. In April 2005, the symbolic cutting of steel took place marking the formal start of the project, but it was not until 19 months later that construction actually began.
Construction has been crippled by procurement woes. There were problems procuring 20,000 tonnes of high-quality steel for the carrier until India's largest steel manufacturer, Steel Authority of India Ltd (SAIL), stepped in. Then came a delay in procuring the bulb bars.
These problems were subsequently sorted out, but new ones have cropped up since, contributing to further delays. The keel of the carrier was to be laid this October, but this has been put off for at least another year, the Times of India report said. This will push up the project cost "substantially".
"The delay in delivery has thrown India's plans into some turbulence," an officer in the navy's western command told Asia Times Online.
Since the decommissioning of India's first aircraft carrier INS Vikrant in 1997, the country has been left with just one carrier, INS Viraat. But Viraat (formerly HMS Hermes of Britain's Royal Navy), which was commissioned in May 1987, is aging. It underwent a major refit in the Cochin Shipyard from 1999 to 2001.
The refit was not just a facelift; it included upgrades to the carrier's propulsion systems, its radar suite, communications systems, and weapon systems. The result was that the aging warhorse - the 50-year old INS Viraat is the oldest aircraft carrier in commission in the world - received another lease on life for about 10 years.
India's purchase of the Admiral Gorshkov and the go-ahead for the construction of the indigenous aircraft carrier were aimed at finding replacements for INS Viraat before its decommissioning in 2010-12. The Indian Navy was hoping that INS Vikramaditya would be operational by 2009, well ahead of the Viraat's retirement.
According to this rather ambitious timetable, the Vikramaditya would join the Viraat and the two would be joined by the indigenous aircraft carrier in 2012.
"It did seem that the Indian Navy's dream of operating three aircraft carriers would be realized, albeit for a short time," the navy officer said. "With delivery schedules going haywire, that seems a bit unlikely in the near future."
The Indian Navy's force projections for the future have long envisaged the operation of three aircraft-carrier groups as essential for the protection of the country's maritime interests.
There are indications now that INS Viraat will have to soldier on for a few more years. In January, navy chief Admiral Sureesh Mehta indicated that the Viraat could remain in active service beyond 2010-12. "We are confident that she is in good condition for another seven years of service," he told the Indian Express.
The carrier's commanding officer, Captain Girish Luthra, said at that time: "The ship is in excellent condition. It is up to the Naval Headquarters to decide how long we use her, but I can say she is in top form."
Indeed, for its age INS Viraat appears to be in fighting trim. In June, it went on a goodwill voyage to several ports in Southeast Asia. Next month, it will be the star of the Indian fleet participating in the five-nation naval exercise in the Bay of Bengal.
Although naval officials are proud of INS Viraat's fitness, they are nonetheless annoyed with the perpetual delays in acquisitions.
"We are making do with a very old aircraft carrier," the naval officer said, adding that "INS Viraat is in fine condition, but only for an aircraft carrier of its age. Our ambitions cannot be realized if the navy finds itself constantly hamstrung by delays in procurement."
Meanwhile, India is looking to induct another aircraft carrier by 2017. This May, Defense Minister A K Antony indicated that this would depend on progress on construction of the indigenous carrier. The order for a third carrier, Antony said, would be placed only after construction of the indigenous vessel progresses "beyond a certain range".
It is not just delayed delivery of aircraft carriers that is annoying navy officials. The Scorpene submarine project - the acquisition of six Scorpene subs is part of India's "Project 75", which envisages the building of 24 submarines by 2025-30 - too is running late.
It took several years for India to negotiate the deal for the acquisition and building of Scorpene submarines. The Cabinet Committee for Security sat on the matter for two years before giving its assent. Finally in 2005, the deal for construction of six Scorpene subs was signed.
Under the deal, India's Mazagon Docks Ltd was to deliver one submarine a year beginning in 2012, but two years on, construction of the vessels is yet to start. Construction of a submarine takes a minimum of six years. This means that Mazagon Docks will not meet the 2012 delivery deadline.
What is worrying naval officials is that India's fleet of 16 diesel-electric submarines (10 Russian Kilo-class ships, four German HDWs and two Foxtrots) is aging and several are due for retirement. "By 2012 we will be left with only nine submarines, with more retirements to follow," the naval officer said.
In 2005, India's then naval chief, Admiral Arun Prakash, warned that India would have to begin building new submarines immediately to be able to replace the ones being retired. Several of India's neighbors were acquiring subs and "India seemed to be the odd man out", he said. Two years on, his warning has not been heeded.
Indian naval officials blame the political establishment and the bureaucracy for crippling the navy's modernization program. Indeed, almost all defense purchases have been mired in scandal. Contracts negotiated by one government have been renegotiated by the next, ostensibly to get a better deal but really for kickbacks. The officials have said acquisitions are being delayed with deals coming under the scanner for corruption.
The navy cannot, however, absolve itself of blame. Senior officers and their kin have been found leaking information and/or receiving bribes in connection with defense procurements. This has been the case with the Scorpene deal, for instance.
India's navy has great ambitions and plans to achieve them, but the hardware to do so is lacking. It seems a classic case of the spirit being strong but the flesh weak.
Last edited:
I do not believe that the US backoff in that case was not due to the military or combat threat from the Indian carrier. It was political...and, OBTW, it was not viewed here as a bad outcome. Had things come down to a fight, no one believes the Indian carrier would have deterred the Enterprise group for more than a few hours, or a day at the most. The AEW and ranged, heavy strike capabilities would have been far too much advantage. But that was not going to happen in any case.
That said, the INS does have good experience operating their carriers. If the new Vikramaditya could come on line as advertised, at the original cost...it would be a good acquisition. It would have many more years service life left in it after this modernization than the old Viraat (Hermes), which is much older, and it would allow the INS to begin getting experience with STOBAL aircraft before their own indegenous carrier comes online. Both of those would be good outcomes for the INS.
Anyhow...project management woes and a failure by planners to see them coming are the real issues IMHO. Those are non-trivial failings and should be corrected before they suffer similar pains over the new Vikrant (if they are not already).
I think the undertaking of Aircraft carrier construction is a huge tasks and requires a sound industrial infrastructure and technological know-how which India completely lacks. Sure it has several urban metropolis and is a consumer market, but the facts are, this is a country that still has social/developmental indicators at par or in many cases below that of sub-Saharan Africa.
One only needs to look at other developed nations which havent bothered themselves which such a grossly huge, many would say 'wastefull' and consumptive project yet have equally if not more acute maritime issues (eg. Japan, South Korea, China, Canada etc...)
Wouldnt it have been more prudent to spend the money on cruisers, destroyers and submarines as they can project maritime power just as equally if not in a better way. Aircraft carriers need to be sufficiently protected otherwise they represent very attractive targets which in this day and age of anti-ship missiles and fast attack semi-stealth small vessels would be a dream come true.
Creating this 'Flotilla' of Aircraft carrier with subsequent supply ships, and a protective force of destroyers, cruisers and subs requires considerable financial and technical obligations which in the case of India, with its 300 million people living in abject poverty, I fail to understand. Furthermore, in the Indian Ocean, who exactly are they building up their navy against? the only powerful navy in the area is that of the US? while international navy's pass through the region, no one really has an extensive presence in the region bar America and at current the maritime waters are in a relative tranquil state.
India's pursuit to its expand its ability will (again) alter this balance and will force nations in the region to 'step up', which inevitably would add a new dimension to the already prevailing arms race going on in the region, thanks again, to India. Other countries are used as a scapegoat to justify the buildup (no country's name being mentioned!) which has encouraged western powers to turn a blind eye, but ''that'' country's naval forces operates in a complete different body of water and away from the Indian ocean. But it sure does raise some eyebrows, whats the purpose of building up such blatantly large and visible naval force in a maritime region thats currently dominated by the Americans especially when you dont have the base to do it, and other more important concerns vis-a-vis your domestic issues. are they building themselves up to counter the American power of the region??
One only needs to look at other developed nations which havent bothered themselves which such a grossly huge, many would say 'wastefull' and consumptive project yet have equally if not more acute maritime issues (eg. Japan, South Korea, China, Canada etc...)
Wouldnt it have been more prudent to spend the money on cruisers, destroyers and submarines as they can project maritime power just as equally if not in a better way. Aircraft carriers need to be sufficiently protected otherwise they represent very attractive targets which in this day and age of anti-ship missiles and fast attack semi-stealth small vessels would be a dream come true.
Creating this 'Flotilla' of Aircraft carrier with subsequent supply ships, and a protective force of destroyers, cruisers and subs requires considerable financial and technical obligations which in the case of India, with its 300 million people living in abject poverty, I fail to understand. Furthermore, in the Indian Ocean, who exactly are they building up their navy against? the only powerful navy in the area is that of the US? while international navy's pass through the region, no one really has an extensive presence in the region bar America and at current the maritime waters are in a relative tranquil state.
India's pursuit to its expand its ability will (again) alter this balance and will force nations in the region to 'step up', which inevitably would add a new dimension to the already prevailing arms race going on in the region, thanks again, to India. Other countries are used as a scapegoat to justify the buildup (no country's name being mentioned!) which has encouraged western powers to turn a blind eye, but ''that'' country's naval forces operates in a complete different body of water and away from the Indian ocean. But it sure does raise some eyebrows, whats the purpose of building up such blatantly large and visible naval force in a maritime region thats currently dominated by the Americans especially when you dont have the base to do it, and other more important concerns vis-a-vis your domestic issues. are they building themselves up to counter the American power of the region??
Last edited:
Cruisers do not have 'presence' like a carrier does. Navies spend most of their time deterring conflict simply by turning up on someone's doorstep and saying "Your next move could bring serious consequences", and a carrier group says that in a language even the man in the street can understand. To the 'sea blind' public of momst countries, a cruiser looks just like a destroyer or a frigate, ie a big grey warship with funny looking boxes on top. No big deal, we've got some of our own, haven't we? But a carrier, that's a different kettle of fish entirely. The IN isn't creating a carrier strike group, it's updating an existing one to maintain it's position as the dominant sea power in the Indian Ocean. If the IN gave up on carriers and built cruisers instead, then Pakistan might have a chance of catching up at long last, so there is no way the Indians will let that happen any time soon.
Of the other nations you mention, Canada is far from being the leading regional power and works under the umbrella of the USNs CVSGs. Japan and South Korea ARE building carriers (albeit hidden under spurious designations, they are putting air capable flat tops to sea), and China, well you won't have to look far on this forum for info on that subject. As for other regional powers having to 'step up', well they didn't when India commissioned either the first Vikrant in 1962 or Viraat in 1986. India and America are getting on pretty well these days so conflict between the two is fairly remote. India has just bought it's first warship from the US and a major unit it is too.
Overall the INs current plans are evolutionary rather revolutionary so are much less likely to evoke a major response from other nations.