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.
RE:Aircraft carriers are obsolete
by Kaushik Ganguli on Feb 28, 2008 09:18 AM Permalink
Thanks - because it is a pleasure to write on such topics other than regional parochialism and hatred which have become passe'.
RE:Aircraft carriers are obsolete
by sudhanshu shilpi on Feb 28, 2008 09:22 AM Permalink
I agree, we ourselves are the reason for the split in our community and country. If we all prefer to ignore our caste, religion and only believe we are Indians, we can kick the backs of any country in all spheres.
RE:Aircraft carriers are obsolete
by Kaushik Ganguli on Feb 28, 2008 09:33 AM Permalink
But to come back to the issue of the Aircraft carrier, I do believe we need an aircraft carrier but not one of these obsolete behemoths. If we see the trend of navies today, big ships are not the case anymore. The maximum displacement of a destroyer would be say 35,000 tons and a frigate would be say 20,000 tons. Speed is much more important and also to strike at the enemy at strategic points.
RE:RE:Aircraft carriers are obsolete
by sudhanshu shilpi on Feb 28, 2008 09:38 AM Permalink
Yes very true. My only concern is getting cheated and I have made a few points above to Rajeev if you would please refer them. Thanx for bringing out some good points. Bye.
RE:Aircraft carriers are obsolete
by kshitij tumbde on Feb 28, 2008 09:35 AM Permalink
Dear Sir:
It has been proven that aircraft carriers are aggressive security systems. They are protected by airplanes, radars, battleships and even submarines. Submarine based navy is defensive where as aircraft carriers are offeinsive. US won the WWII because of aircraft carriers could be taken near to Japanese shores to launch strikes. You can take aircraft carrier anywhere in the ocean and lauch your fighter jets there. USA itself maintains atleast 8 on each coast. total around 16. Kitty Hawk is too old and India can get a better deal elsewhere.
RE:Aircraft carriers are obsolete
by Sahadevan KK on Feb 28, 2008 09:51 AM Permalink
Gates is frightening our PM and our reformers. MMS must recognise what were happened Mushraff, Tony Blair, Japan PM, and Australian PM.
