None of their traditional opposition (Pakistan, China) has blue water capacity. I just saw on CNN (TV) that they are going to lease some subs and an aircraft carrier from the Russians. What gives???
Heh... India has been called "a dagger pointed at the heart of the.... Indian Ocean" . Terrible strategic location, but all sorts of internal potential for great power status. Carriers sort of help to increase strategic capabilities . I can't believe the Russians are doing this, though... seems sort of stupid.
Haven, India will have more strategic impact in this century than in the past. Russia is getting some cash flow instead of having to strap itself financially to support that equipment. Mango
The Gorshkov is not comparable to a US carrier, though. Don't get overly excited about it. The two nuclear subs (Viktor IIIs) are far more relevant. They can fire SS-N-21 cruise missiles which can be armed with a 200kt nuclear payload. India will have a nuclear triad with this acquisition. This is really directed at China, who is also attempting to acquire blue water assets. They will eventually duke it out over the South China Sea (and its huge oil deposits).
I understand China is moving towards a blue water capability via-a-via the Spratleys/Taiwan, but INDIA wouldn't be projecting in the South China Sea! What does India need a carrier for? The only naval force IN the Indian Ocean is the US...
HayesStreet: You are incorrect that India has no presence in the S. China Sea. Their dispute over the Spratleys has been well publicized; over the past few years there have been several instances in which the Indians sent large battlegroups into the S. China Sea in order to test Chinese defenses. They have nearly come to blows on a few occasions. Also, again, the carrier is not that important. It is not in the same class as a US supercarrier; it's a light carrier with cruiser armament. Yes, it will improve their naval combat and force projection capability, but the subs are far still more important. A nuclear triad is really the only to guarantee nuclear deterrance; no first strike against India will work if they arm those subs with nuclear cruise missiles. That is going to really piss of the Pakistanis and Chinese. I love it. This will also give them a significant presence in the IO, although next to the US they are already #2 there. It seals the fate of Pakistan's navy. In addition, we (the US) are currently in the process of negotiating unprecedented military sales of our own equipment to the Indians (namely Orion anti-sub/naval recon aricraft, Harpoon antiship missiles, and Sea Hawk antisub warfare helicopters) that will solidify their ability to control sea routes both in the IO and the S. China Sea. So don't get the idea that we have a problem with this - we're helping them do it. They should turn out to be an excellent ally in the future, as they generally have the same enemies that we do.
<b>treeman , HayesStreet</b>: Where do you guys learn this stuff? You talk about this complicated stuff like they are fruits and vegetables at Randalls. I literally have no idea what you are talking about. That's a compliment not a complaint.
As evidenced by the U.S's use of surgical and linear air strikes, ACC's strategic use has come a long way since Halsey et al...In fact, while they are the basis for the modern fleet, their greatest impact since Midway has been on allowing first-strike air assaults on land-based targets, or providing air support for ground forces. As such, a more interesting speculation for India's intent with the ACC might be to ask...What targets, within their poss enemies' terrain, are not within range of land based air assaults, but would be from a carrier in the Indian Sea, S. Pac, etc..? The posibilities are...intriguing.
They probably both have a love of history and that makes the understanding of current affairs easier. They should be able to identify the following (without research): General William "Billy" Mitchell Admiral Rickover Battle of Midway General Westmoreland Place the P-51 (Mustang), MIG-21 and F-117 in their respective eras. The list could continue, but those are the type of basics on which posters such as treeman and HayesStreet build upon. Mango
Actually, if you really want to understand the evolution of the ACC, you have to start with the Japanese, especially during the Japo-Russian war. There was some minimal development during WWI, but the tactics and strategies which are the basis for NC to this day, with some minor adjustment for tech advances, was originated by the Japanese. Since then, the developments have been technological and conceptual, but the basic strategies and tactics remain...
Good, I thought I was the only one left out to dry! And, who wouldn't want their own aircraft carrier?!?
I would think for two reasons : 1) To keep pace with China, or even trump then navally. 2) To try and gain some legitimacy as a Second-tier superpower by gaining the ability to project power elsewhere. Russia gets money, instead of watching those subs and the Carrier sit in the docks in rust. win-win for both sides. I don't see how these acquisitions would significantly, directly affect the US any.
Puedlfor: That's pretty much it. Except that Russia has another motivation - to give both Pakistan and China problems. There's no love lost between Russia and either of them... There is always the possibility that down the road, the Indians might see our presence in SE Asia, Central Asia, the IO, etc as a roadblock that had to be cleared, but IMO that's road block they'd still have to go around. This will give them two light V/STOL carriers to go with a significant surface fleet, as well as several conventional subs and now two nuclear subs. It might take a US carrier battle group two days to sink everything except the subs - those would have to be hunted down. This is not meant as a deterrant to us, it is primarily meant to A) challenge the Chinese, and B) complete a nuclear triad. And as I mentioned, we are also about to begin selling India weapons for the first time ever. They are an ally now.
One of the earliest stories about Russia - India defense transactions is here: <A HREF="http://www.hindustantimes.com/nonfram/030202/detfro01.asp">India, Russia to talk N-sub lease </A> A more detailed analysis appeared at Stratfor a few days later: <A HREF="http://www.stratfor.com/fib/topStory_view.php?ID=203062">India Contests for Sea Lane Control, Builds Toward Nuclear Triad</A> JAG, Japan might have had the first widescale use of carriers at Pearl Harbor, but credit Mitchell with espousing air power and US and British advances in carrier operations for the foundation that Japan built upon. What tech advances did Japan contribute to carrier operations pre1941? Mango
I was incorrect; these are Akula SSNs. (I think Stratfor is incorrect; I just checked and the Victor III doesn't carry SS-N-21s, and the other article is calling them by the Akula designation...) That's the best sub in the Russian fleet. And they do carry strategic cruise missiles. They're also killer attack subs... Nothing the Chinese could catch.
The Evolution of warfare as well as the tactics involved are irrelavent in the contect of India, its waters, and their friendly neighbours. An aircraft carrier is without a doubt a status symbol. SE asia and asia in general are emergihg markets both economicly as well as politically. China was the first nation to flex a little muscle in the region. India, a very legitimate equal to china has decided to respond in kind. this is merely a measure to demonstrate to china as well as all the small nations in the region that China is not the only power in that area. it is not the only country they should be attempting to win over for economic codevelopmental programs, and well its not going to be a "satalite nation" for china. this is something americans and supporters of the "american way of life" should be psyched aboput. it creating a regional america fot chinas russia if you will. The carrier is crap, the subs are pretty much jalopeys, but they are way more than say Bangladesh, iran, paki, any arab nation, and indonesia have. dont forget that India was a britich colony. India still has MASSIVE cultural ties to the mother land(much like Australia). Australia has been in huge conflict with Indonesia. in the S china sea, so this is a serious regional move. some old school for you fellow history peeps http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/carriers/cv-hist1.html By the way. Indias plan for the carrier is not to press it into service. infact it is to dismantle it, research,l and design /build its own fleet. you can lead a man to water and he drinks for a day, but teach him to build a well and he is forever refreshed. or something like that PEACE
Uh, don't think so. India has NO claim to the Spratlys. India and China have a 'sphere of influence' conflict since they both want to be the great power in the area, but India's hegemonic claims don't translate into territorial claims. The Spratly's conflict is between claimants to the territory (and subsequent oil reserves and fishing rights): China, Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines, and Malaysia. "India's spreading naval reach is in part to counter the growing threat of piracy on both sides of the Strait of Malacca." [Asia Times] Of course I'm not denying that there is a credibility increase for India by adding these capabilities (as I believe Haven pointed out), it just seems much more likely that the US would be engaged by a Indian blue water force than the Chinese. In fact, the reason that I started this thread was because the report I initially heard said the Indians were making these purchases to balance the US in the Indian Ocean...I didn't say that cause I wanted to see if anyone else had heard it, but apparently not. Any idea what the force capability of this carrier actually is? Let's hope you're right. Personally I don't see it as anything but bad news since there isn't another large naval presence in the area except for us.
