Before going for an aircraft carrier the Navy should first assess the need for a huge ship which would difficult to maintain. A brief history of evolution of navies would be in order. In the early 20th century, battleships and battlecruisers of the 'dreadnought' class were the talk of the day. But with submarines gaining precedence and with airpower becoming more and more pronounced, the battlecruiser - with its weak upper deck armour plating and the battleship - with its slow speed - became sitting ducks for submarines. In World War II, the German Kriegsmarines most powerful battleship the 'Tirpitz' saw very little action and the germans depended heavily on their submarines or U Boats. After the sinking of the 'Hood' and 'Repulse', the Royal Navy also saw the battleship in a poor light. Aircraft carriers were heavily in demand. But today, the accent is on missiles which are easily launched from destroyers and frigates. Aircraft also are entering a phase when there would be more of unmanned flights piloted from the ground. So do we really need aircraft carriers?
Both the 'Gorshkov' and the 'Kitty Hawk' are old - more than 35 years old and it would be better for the Indian Navy - if it needs to police the Indian Ocean - to build a medium range nuclear powered aircraft carrier at home. If we can do so many things, we should be able to do this easily.
