I think you meant the Russo-Japanese War. I would be interested (I'm familiar with the basics of the conflict but no in depth study) to know how that conflict set the tactics for modern carriers when there were no carriers at that time (the UK is recognized as having built the first operational aircraft carrier, Hermes, in 1913). That conflict was fought between battleships, cruisers, and torpedo boats...AFTER the R/J conflict the Japanese recognized that the US naval power was the only possible force capable of hindering their objectives in the Pacific, but that's not saying that modern carrier doctrine came from the R/J conflict.
Oh, oh, oh, ...I know that one without research!!!!! He was the first to advocate the use of airplanes as weapons by dropping bombs out of them.
Are you sure? I thought Akula's are purely attack subs. The main Russian missile boat is the Typhoon i thought... I really dont think that the Russian would just give them missile boats. And 2 attack subs really dont have much strategic importance.
I thought he was the first AMERICAN to advocate airpower for strategic use and for defense against naval power. I'm not sure when the first modern bomber went into action, but I know that they dropped bombs from Zepplins and grenades and stuff from those ol rickety biplanes in WWI. I believe Mitchell got canned for being outspoken about it. The Battle of Midway: that was a Charlton Heston movie, right? Anybody else read those old WEB Griffin books?
I am pretty sure India already had a ex-British Hermes Aircraft Carrier - The Viraat. It had been out of service for a while but was supposed to be back last year. Mango's questions - General William "Billy" Mitchell - ??? Don't know this one. (Thanks for the info Behad) Admiral Rickover - pushed the Navy into the nuclear era. Battle of Midway - turning point of WWII in the Pacific theatre. Japan lost 4 ACC's I believe. General Westmoreland - Vietnam Place the P-51 (Mustang), MIG-21 and F-117 in their respective eras. P-51 - Bad Ass WWII fighter that protected our bombers over Germany/Europe. History channel had a great piece about them. It didn't become the best fighter escort until they put the Merlin RR engine in it that gave it the long range to protect our bombers from the Luftwaffe. The P-51 was also the "tank-buster" at the end of Saving Private Ryan. MIG-21 - Cold War Era russian plane. Still in use... F-117 - Nighthawk Stealth - 1st Stealth plane.
Nomar: The Shchuka B is designated as the "Akula I/II" by western powers (I'm just using the western designation). It's not a SSBN (ballistic missile sub), it is a SSN (an attack sub). It is roughly comparable to a US Los Angeles class submarine. It fires the SS-N-21 out of its torpedo tubes, much as the older LA class subs fire Tomahawks out of their torpedo tubes. The SS-N-21 can hit anything in China, and it can hide. That is of immense strategic importance. It is not a 'jalopy', as someone else stated. HayesStreet: You are correct that India has no official claim to the Spratleys, but they do covet the oil deposits there. And they have sent battle groups there on at least two occasions in the past 5 years in order to test Chinese reactions. India is facing a tremendous energy crisis over the next couple of decades; their domestic production will literally not be enough to handle consumption, and Persian Gulf supply is... unreliable. Eventually, they are going to want the Spratleys. There is no other reason for them to test Chinese reactions there. Everyone wants the Spratleys. The team with the biggest stick is going to get them. Please. The Indians could not even hope to defeat even a single US CVBG, and they know that. And again, why would we be sending them three platforms whose only purpose is sea control if these moves were meant to challenge us? They are allies now. They have been natural allies since the Cold War ended, we just didn't realize it until 9/11. This is still mainly about the Chinese, though. Here: http://www.webcom.com/~amraam/rcar.html#kiev Skip down to the Kiev section. It's really a hybrid cruiser/VSTOL light carrier; in Indian service it is to be converted to a STOVL carrier, and the plan is to buy some MiG-29s and/or Su-27s, but they may end up operating Harriers off of it as they do with their other light carrier. It is no match for a US supercarrier, but it's a tremendous advantage against anyone without a carrier. It should be said that the Chinese are buying the Varyag, though, so they may soon have carrier capability as well. Although the Varyag is not in very good shape... Again, this is useless against a US CVBG. Against US assets, the Orions and Harpoons we're selling them would be far more of a threat than the carrier. But the Chinese are actively trying to increase their blue water capability... They will not just have a coastal navy forever.
Here's what the Gorshkov looks like right now: ... And here's what the Indians intend to do to it: It looks as if they intend to remove all of its weapons and modify it to the extent that it is a true STOVL carrier. This would match the capability of the Varyag, if it enters Chinese service. Still no match for a US carrier / CVBG...
I think you'd be hard pressed to find any literature talking about India moving on the Spratlys. India has made a concerted effort to re-assert (well they think of it as re-asserting) their influence in Far East, known as their 'Look East' policy. Their moves, like stopping piracy, are all geared toward expanding that influence with the other nations in Southeast Asia, and of course playing a balancer against China. But there is no way India thinks they could project and hold the Spratlys for long term resources. Especially since the Spratly's are close enough for the Chinese to deposit troops and since they've already got airfields (a 10,000 foot strip I believe on Woody Island) they can use land based aircraft from in the islands. And no doubt a move by India to actually occupy the Spratlys would cause an all out war with China.
PhiSlammaJamma: Even if they turned into enemies (again), and that is not impossible - they might get the idea that they want to be the sole SE Asian power down the road - this acquisition is not going to help them against us. But for the time being, they are convenient allies, to say the least; they have the one thing that we lack in Asian power politics: a large land army to threaten China with. There are very few countries (if any) that can defeat a US CVBG at sea. We have 12 of them, so I for one am not worried.
HayesStreet: Give me one good reason that the Indians would send battlegroups into the S. China Sea, if the oil deposits there (which are located around the Spratleys) are not coveted? Their energy concerns are unavoidable - it is only a matter of time before India will have no choice but to significantly increase their supply. They are working on a pipeline with Iran, but for obvious reasons, that may not pan out. One way or another, they will have to increase their supply. And again, this would not significantly impact any hypothetical challenge to US forces operating in the region. This will only impact the naval equation with respect to the China-India balance. Also again, why would we sell them sea control hardware if the intent is to challenge us? This is meant for China, and the only real naval goal they could have in a China-Indo conflict has to do with the oil deposits in the South China Sea. It would be fully expected that such a move would mean all-out war with China. From a strategic standpoint, that is probably unavoidable in the long term as well. Two great powers cannot coexist peacefully in the same geographical sphere of influence forever.
What if they went nuclear on the CVBG? They could be relatively confident that a US President would not eliminate Bombay as retaliation. And you aren't giving creedence to the fact that India has long standing issues with US naval power in the region... "It should be noted that it was the threatening and coercive presence in the Bay of Bengal of the US Seventh Fleet, (led by the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Enterprise) during the 1971 Bangladesh war of independence that had triggered India's first nuclear test.'" As we've seen in Afghanistan, the US capability to project can be strained. We've had to reallocate from Europe and other regions. Many of these problems came to light in the debates over the 'Two Major Regional Conflicts' findings in the early 90s. What if we were occupied in other conflicts? And I did provide you a reason for India to send their navy into the South China Sea (which is huge - its not like sending a battlegroup into Lake Erie). Pirates is one. (argh) Simply having a force that goes and visits all the ports in the rest fo Southeast Asia boosts their influence, as per their new policy direction, in the region.
HayesStreet: I'm not sure if you understand how difficult it really is to hit a CVBG with anything you can throw at it. It is much more difficult to nuke a CVBG than you might think. If they threw 100 cruise missiles at it, then one or two might get through. If you're going to nuke it, then every missile you throw had better have a nuclear warhead. CVBGs are very good at shooting down incoming missiles. In countless trials there are only two situations where carriers are really vulnerable to attack: 1) if they're not paying attention, or 2) if a sub sneaks through the ASW screen. Both are possible, but unlikely if the CVBG is on alert. And you aren't giving credence to the fact that everything has changed since 9/11. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but the map of global strategic alliances is being completely rearranged... Yes, they were enemies during the Cold War. But Cold War alliances no longer matter. What matters is that we have the same enemies now, not that their enemies were our clients 30 years ago.
Until the conflict in the Pacific seemed inevitable, no soon to be allied force had espoused the use of the ACC as the cog around which a fleet was based, until the Japanese. Ironically, it was due to the relatively low priority placed on the ACC's in oa naval command ( see Nimitz, Modern Naval Tactics) that the U.S. ACC's were not in Pearl Harbour on Dec. 7th, as they had been isolated and redeployed for repair and re-evaluation, ( unless you're a conspiracy buff), something that would NEVER happen contemporarily. Yes, Mitchell and many British thorists and tacticians had espoused the use of the ACC earlier, but it was never implemented to any degree until the war in the Pacific, as initiated by the Japanese, showed the awesome power it possessed. Halsey himself recognized the debt the U.S. owed to the Japanese for teaching them how to fight a carrier war...
HayesStreet: Oil. Energy. You just can't get away from that, and there is no more important factor when considering Indian naval power projection. Fighting piracy and "showing the flag" are important, yes. But not nearly as important as securing an energy supply for a growing power.
LOL! Yes, I do...was on sleeping pills when i wrote that, and was groping for the right words, and even then it sounded vaguely wrong...Ok, it was due to the lack of strategic air flexibility that the Japanese were unable to initially exploit their incursion along the peninsula near Vladivostok, and their chief naval commander ( I think it was Minamoto, but I could be very wrong) at that point began to stress the development of the ACC to increase the zone of influence of their growing air force. Then, when they had decided that they needed to expand their AOC to maintain development, thus increase resources, they did indeed define the U.S. as their only potential threat of significance. And while they could never hope to out produce the U.S. in terms of cruisers,destroyers, and battleships, they devised a novel strategy to balance the scales, which had 3 prongs...The shift of emphasis away from sheer numbers in sea-to-sea vessels and towards fewer but deadlier Pacific versions of the dreadnought ( ie. super-battleships), the furtherance of the lessons learned in the R/J conflict in terms of the increasing influence of the AF, and it's according ZOI, ( which was really first theorized by rh British, not the Americans, especially as a counter to submarines) and the surprise strike to neutralize the U.S. fleet long enough to accumulate oil and other resources to build up a fleet capable of resisting the American one...
What the hell is a CVBG? Is that a carrier group? If so, I dont think you can hit it with anything. Those Guided missile cruisers are badass. I went on the USS San Jac, and its money. Those can shoot down like a thousand missles. If your talking about dropping a nuke, impossible. The Tomcats will blow the hell out of any bombers. Treeman- Gotcha. So they couldnt hit us, thats what I was saying. I see your point now about its regional strategic importance. BTW- do you know anything about our own Submarine forces? Are we still using mainly LA Attack subs and the (im really guessing here) Chicago??? missle subs? When are we going to make some newer, cooler subs.
All of which Billy Mitchell predicted by the way (including the attack on Pearl Harbor). I think maybe I misunderstood your implications about the R/J war. If you're saying the limitations of that conflict led to Japanese carrier doctrine, and that was the basis for what came after, I'd haltingly agree to that with the caveats that the Brits were the first to BUILD an ACC and you'd assume they'd have a doctrine with it, and that Billy Mitchell was proposing the same changes. It is important to note that while Mitchell was driven out because of his views, by the time of Pearl Harbor, the US did in fact have a substantial ACC force and doctrine in place. If you're saying modern carrier doctrine is the same, then I'd disagree, since the Japanese doctrine was initially designed to use the ACC to pave the way for battleships (the dreadnoughts you spoke of), not to replace them. Treeman: again I say lets see someone else who supports your Spratlys conclusions. I've posted a couple of quotes giving other reasons why they'd be in the SCS. And I'm surpised you're acting so naive about our 'newfound' relationship with India. We are allies on this ONE issue. We are not on a lot of others, and we have no historical relationship (except negatives) to stop a real conflict. And mucho mucho times have we sold weapons to 'allies' only for them to be used against us.
