Why is India building aircraft carriers and submarines that can be easily destroyed using anti-ship missiles?
為什麼印度要建造容易被反艦飛彈擊沉的航母和潛艇？
以下是Quora讀者的評論：
Craig Mowbray, Inquisitive, creative, irreverent, flaneur
I have been reading all the answers to this question with great interest and and decided to join in all the fun;)
Forgive me if I don’t resort to vast quantities of intricate detail as I would like to take a slightly more distanced take on the matter and avoid arguing over intricacies.
So, in answer to your question
「India: Why is Indian Navy building Aircraft carriers and Submarines which can be easily destroyed using anti-ship missiles?」
我一直以極大的興趣閱讀這個問題的所有答案，並決定湊個樂子。
如果我沒有提供大量複雜的細節，敬請原諒，因為我不想太過複雜地討論這個問題。
那麼，我來回答你的問題：
「印度：為什麼印度海軍要建造可以輕易被反艦飛彈摧毀的航空母艦和潛艇?」
Why?
Well basically because they can and what’s more they deserve it!
India is a strong, confident and technically proficient nation with a proud military history. It has great expectations and has a desire to be taken seriously, a force to be reckoned with on the world stage. It rightly considers itself a future global power with a seat at the top tables of influence. The commissioning and deployment of such vessels will be a clear illustration and manifestation of this intent
Irrespective of the strategic and tactical aspects of their proposed military application, the political and diplomatic advantages of their presence will be enormous to India moving forward. This together with the various non tangible benefits associated with such projects, for instance national pride, cannot be underestimated. Luckily India has both the industrial facilities, expertise and most importantly will to achieve its aims. The industrial, scientific and general learnings from their manufacture will assist India not only in other military projects but offshoot commercial ventures as well and will go a long way to projecting national status at home and abroad.
為什麼?
就是因為他們有能力唄，而且更重要的是他們應該擁有！
印度是一個強大、自信、技術嫻熟的國家，擁有令人自豪的軍事歷史。它對自己的未來有很大的期許，希望得到認真對待，希望在世界舞臺上成為一股不可忽視的力量。它理所當然地認為自己是未來的全球強國，在全球影響力排行榜上佔有一席之地。這類船船艦的服役和部署就是這一意圖的明確說明和表現。
不管他們的軍事用途在戰略和戰術方面表現如何，他們的存在將給印度帶來巨大的政治和外交優勢。這一點以及與這些項目有關的各種無形利益，例如民族自豪感，是不可低估的。幸運的是，印度既有工業設施、專業知識，最重要的是，它還有實現目標的意願。從製造業中獲得的工業、科學和綜合知識不僅將幫助印度在其他軍事項目上，而且還將幫助印度在商業上取得進展，這對提升印度的國家地位大有裨益。
Deployment
How will India deploy them? This will already have been resolved, so rest assured, the carriers will be protected by a corresponding carrier group. It will probably take the form of a layered approach with Pickets and AEW aircraft forming the outer perimeter, ASW frigates set inboard of this and then AAW ships close to the carrier to provide air detection and cover. Plus the odd sub or two and some of the ships maybe have a dual role and having ASuW capacity. Not forgetting all the aircraft on the carrier and the necessary supply ships in attendance. Pretty impressive.
部署
印度將如何部署？這個問題已經解決了，所以請放心，航母將受到航母群的保護。可能會採取一種分層的方式，哨兵和AEW飛機形成外圍，ASW護衛艦在裡面，然後AAW船隻靠近航母提供空中偵察和掩護。再加上一兩艘潛艇和一些可能具備雙重作用、擁有隨載能力的艦艇。別忘了航母上所有的飛機和必要的補給船。令人印象非常深刻。
Rahul Kardam, Entrepreneur, Web-Developer and an investor at heart.
I'd like to answer the part "easily destroyed using an anti-ship missile".
Till some years back I used to think the same. Then one day I happened to visit INS Viraat when it was berthed in naval dockyard in south Mumbai . There the naval officer explained that an aircraft carrier is protected by a multitude of assets. The first is the carriers own aircraft flying protective sorties which can engage an incoming enemy missile as far as 200 km away. The next is the the carriers own anti aircraft missiles capable of engaging enemy missiles upto 50 Km away. And they typically fire two missiles not just one. In case the enemy missile is still able to evade carrier's missiles, then aircraft carriers have a multitude of gattling cannons which start churning out bullets in the tune of thousands per minute, which create a sort of iron wall within 500 meters of the aircraft carrier.
I still did not believe that this much of protection would be enough.
Then one day I saw
( a single aircraft carrier was the only formidable naval asset US had just after Japan attacked Pearl Harbour and that was USS enterprise (while other carriers had been put out by Japanese navy). Long story short , USS Enterprise lived the world war 2 and survived, despite taking multiple poundings from Japanese.
The concept of carrier battle groups existed since WWII . Dozens of warships have protected the central carrier with their anti aircraft anti missile batteries. The Carrier is pretty much like a dinosaur which can take a lot of beating. Just one single missile , even if it had a straight shot at it, would not be able to sink it.
我想回答「反艦飛彈很容易摧毀」這部分。
幾年前我也是這麼認為的。後來，機緣巧合，我去了維拉特號，當時它停泊在孟買南部的海軍造船廠。海軍軍官解釋說，一艘航空母艦會受到許多軍事設施的保護。首先，航空母艦擁有飛行的御防飛機，可以打擊200公裡外的敵方飛彈。其次航母擁有防空飛彈，能夠對抗50公裡外的敵方飛彈。他們通常會發射兩枚飛彈，而非一枚。如果敵人的飛彈躲過了航母的飛彈，那麼航母還有大量的加力炮，它們會以每分鐘數千次的速度發射子彈，在航母500米範圍內形成一堵鐵牆。
我仍然不相信這麼多的保護就足夠了。
然後有一天我看到
(美國在日本襲擊珍珠港後擁有的唯一令人生畏的海軍裝備，就是企業號航空母艦，其他航空母艦已經被日本海軍淘汰)。長話短說，儘管遭受了日本人的重重打擊，美國企業號軍艦還是經受住了第二次世界大戰的考驗。
航母戰鬥群的概念自二戰以來就一直存在。數十艘軍艦用防空和飛彈系統保護了中央航空母艦。航母很像恐龍，可以承受很大的打擊。僅靠一枚飛彈，即便是直接擊中航母，也不可能擊沉航母。
Abhishek Kb, studied at Bachelor of Engineering in Computer Science and Engineering
Aircraft carriers are not a easy target,they wil be having heavy escorts(cruisers,destroyers etc) and they themself will be equipped with bunch of defensive tools,
Coming to submarines they are the difficult target to destroy before submarine gets spotted it could destroy that ship .They can penetrate into enemy waters without their notice & can carry an ambush over enemy teritory.
In the war of 1971 'INS VIKRANTH' played a vital role and helped to maintain supremacy in east cost of India & caused a huge damage to eastern pak naval fleet
And now a days defence systems are highly advanced like we have anti torpedo units ,air to air missiles etc , So Aircraft Carriers & Submarines are not waste of money they are the BEAST's of the sea.
And maintaining the aircraft carrier is not an easy job for the country it needs a stable economy ,thats the main reason for Pak not to have an aircraft carrier(pak admiral himself agreed that they cannot afford aircraft carrier)Lol
航空母艦不是隨便就能擊中的目標，他們會配備徐國護航艦(巡洋艦，驅逐艦等)，航母本身也會配備大量的防禦工具。
在潛艇被發現之前，是很難摧毀的目標。他們可以悄無聲息地潛入敵人的水域，可以對敵人的駐地進行伏擊。
在1971年的戰爭中，「維克蘭號」發揮了至關重要的作用，幫助印度維持了在東海岸的霸權，給東巴基斯坦海軍艦隊造成了巨大的破壞。
現在的防禦系統非常先進，比如我們有反魚雷裝置，空對空飛彈等等，所以航母和潛艇並不是浪費錢，它們是海洋上的野獸。
航母的養護對國家來說並非易事，需要穩定的經濟作為基礎，這是巴基斯坦沒有航母的主要原因(巴基斯坦海軍上將也承認他們買不起航母)，哈哈
Chaitanya Ramesh, studied at The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India
Mainly because such anti-ship missiles are unproven.
Such missiles have never been used in a full scale combat situation. Without actual use in combat, it is impossible to tell whether such missiles would change the face of naval warfare or just be ineffective gimmicks.
Soviet naval doctrine was indeed against carriers since they felt these were missile-magnets. But there were several other factors too.
The Soviet Navy, unlike its US and UK counterparts, did not play a major role in WW2. After that, during the Cold War, the Navy had the least priority among the 5 Armed Forces of the USSR, resulting in it getting minimum finance. Now aircraft carriers and aircraft themselves are extremely expensive. Thus, the Soviet Navy was forced to develop alternate tactics.
主要是因為這種反艦飛彈的威力未經證實。
這種飛彈從未在全面戰鬥中使用過。如果沒有在戰鬥中真的投入使用，就不可能判斷這種飛彈究竟是不是噱頭。
蘇聯海軍的確反對航母，他們覺得航母是飛彈磁鐵。但除此之外還有其他因素。
與美英海軍不同，蘇聯海軍在二戰中並未扮演重要角色。在那之後，冷戰期間海軍在蘇聯的5支武裝力量中地位最低，導致它得到的資金最少。航空母艦和飛機造價都非常昂貴。因此，蘇聯海軍被迫發展替代戰術。
譯文來源：三泰虎 http://www.santaihu.com/48541.html 譯者：Joyceliu
Also, look at military naval history.
Prior to WW2, the dominant thought among naval circles was that submarines had been made obsolete by ASIDIC - an early version of sonar (which sends sound waves into water, enabling ships to locate submarines). Actual combat in WW2 proved that despite the deployment of ASIDIC, submarines were still extremely useful and were definitely not obsolete.
In contrast, many dismissed aircraft carriers as showpieces with only a marginal role in naval warfare (the dominant ships then were battleships). During WW2 however, it was aircraft carriers which became the dominant factor for Navies and the battleship was relegated to secondary roles.
還有，看看海軍的歷史。
在第二次世界大戰之前，在海軍圈子裡佔主導地位的想法是，潛艇已經被ASIDIC淘汰了。二戰的戰況證明，潛艇仍然非常有用，絕對沒有過時。
相比之下，許多人認為航空母艦在海戰中只是一個邊緣角色(當時佔主導地位的是戰列艦)。然而，在二戰期間，航空母艦成為海軍的主導因素，戰列艦被降為次要角色。
Thus, it is impossible to say whether a technology is effective or not without use in warfare. And as I said, these anti-ship missiles have never been used in combat before.
Even if initially successful, there is no reason why counter-measures cannot be developed. In fact, one such counter-measure actually exists.
These are Close-In Weapons System (CIWS). This is basically a computer-controlled machine gun, firing a huge number of rounds per minute, which tries to shoot anti-ship missiles before they damage the ship.
因此，一項技術若未在戰爭中驗證，就無法判斷其究竟是否有效。正如我所說，這些反艦飛彈以前從未在戰鬥中使用過。
即使最初取得了成功，也沒有理由不能制定出相應的措施。事實上，這樣的應對措施確實存在。
這些是近距離武器系統(CIWS)。基本上是一臺計算機控制的機關槍，能夠在反艦飛彈破壞艦艇之前每分鐘發射出大量子彈。
Amit Gujar, like the cat, curiosity will kill me too
By your reasoning the following should also be excluded:
Tanks: easy targets for multiple medium barrel guns, aircrafts, enemy tanks, etc
And cost of making one is a few 100 times than of the device used to destroy one.
Aircrafts: easy targets for SAMs and enemy aircrafts.
Helicopters: Can be brought down by even a grenade launcher. Plus many other guns.
Soldiers: can be decapitated by a single bullet. Cost of bullet far far less than expense incurred on soldiers.
I am sure if you can think of counter reasons why above equipment is necessary, them air craft carriers and submarines are necessary.
根據你的推理，下列情況也應排除在外：
坦克：是容易被多管炮、飛機、敵人坦克等攻擊的目標
而且製造一架坦克的成本是用來摧毀一個設備的100倍。
飛機：對地對空飛彈和敵方飛機來說是容易攻擊的目標。
直升飛機：甚至能被榴彈發射器擊落。很多槍也能做到。
士兵：一顆子彈就能取其姓名。子彈的成本遠遠低於士兵的花費。
我相信，如果你能想到上述設備是必要的反對理由，那麼航空母艦和潛艇就是必要的。
Veerappan Laxman, Engineer, Gamer, Dreamer, likes History, Science, Technology and Peace. Dislikes Politics, Terrorism, Viole...
Short Answer: Power Projection especially since we sit right next to the World's shipping jugular.
Long Answer : Compared to China which is only open to the Pacific and is bound by regional neighbours like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, South East Asian Nations and foreign powers like US - we have a far larger access to the most important naval region in the World - even more so in coming century - nearly half the World's shipping passes through the Indian Ocean - so the ability to project our power - which is symbolized by the AC - is absolutely vital to our strategic interests.
So basically, it's just our requirements based on our situation in the geo-political scene is very different from China's.
簡而言之：實力的展示，尤其是因為我們就位在世界航運要道的旁邊。
長篇幅的答案：與中國相比，中國只毗鄰太平洋，擁有日本、韓國、臺灣、東南亞國家等鄰國及美國等外國勢力—而我們距離世界上最重要的海軍區域更近—在未來的世紀更是如此—近一半的全球航運通過印度洋，所以展示我們實力的能力—以航母為象徵—是絕對至關重要的戰略利益。
所以基本上，這是我們基於地緣政治的需求，與中國非常不同。
Pratik Mane
Aircraft carriers and sub marines aren't that vulnerable like you think.They are loaded with highly sophisticated tactical systems to misguide the missiles coming to them and also detect the source of their launches in order to eliminate the roots in no time.
There must be an ideology and clever engineering behind building such costly and gigantic ships.
They wouldn't have produced such type of ships unless they were clear with all saftey precautions.
航空母艦和潛艇並不像你想的那麼脆弱。他們裝載了高度複雜的戰術系統，能誤導向他們飛來的飛彈，並探測它們的發射源，以便在短時間內搗毀窩點。
建造如此昂貴而龐大的船隻背後肯定有一種意識形態和巧妙的工程設計。
除非他們清楚所有的安全預防措施，否則他們不會生產這種類型的船。
Nikhil, lives in India
By your logic. Why do we buy cars when we know that they can be destroyed in a single accident ?
Everything can be destroyed . An aircraft can crash , which doesn't mean you say , what's the point in buying a plane when you know it can crash someday.
Some things are necessary to project power and safeguard our territory. Carriers perform humanitarian missions also. You can't send a missile boat to a hurricane hit area to rescue people. Carriers are useful in war and peace time. Missiles are useful only in war. And carriers are well defended.
Hence we are building aircraft carriers . And we are giving them the best possible protection.
根據你的邏輯，我們知道汽車有可能在事故中被摧毀，為什麼還要購買汽車呢？
一切都可能被毀。飛機可能會墜毀，這並不意味著你能說，買飛機有什麼意義。
對展示實力和保衛我們的領土而言，有些東西是必要的。航空母艦也執行人道主義任務。你不能派飛彈艇去颶風災區救人。航母在戰爭和和平時期都很有用。飛彈只有在戰爭中才有用。航母受到很好的保護。
因此，我們正在建造航空母艦。我們會給他們最好的保護。
Mitu Kumar, Proud to be INDIAN, working for developed India
is USA ,France , britian fool to have heavily invested in the construction of aircraft carrier from the very beginning. US navy has largest number of aircraft carrier and that too nuclear powered which are more expensive than the conventional ones.
Aircraft carriers are the means to project power in the region and in the world . they carry carrier based fighters which can strike the part of area near the vicinity of carrier.
you must cite the example of INS Vikrant which took part in indo-pak war 1971 and sent its fighters in the war in the Bangladesh .it made a huge impact.
美國、法國、英國對建造航母投入巨資。美國海軍擁有數量最多的航空母艦，而且核動力航母比常規航母更昂貴。
航空母艦是在地區和世界上展現實力的手段。他們攜帶的艦載機可以打擊航母附近的區域。
你必須列舉1971年「維克蘭特」號航母的例子，它參加了印巴戰爭，並派出艦載戰鬥機參加了孟加拉國戰爭，產生了巨大的影響。
Amit Kumar, Follower of national developments
With growing stature of India, it ought to strengthen its defences, securing major lines of communication(which are sea lanes) and enhance its presence in areas around itself and beyond. India’s geosrategic position has been the reason for naming the ocean as Indian Ocean. And hence comes the need of strong navy. And submarine and aircraft carrier forms a major part of fill above requirements.
Now to the question, if they are easily targetable by anti-ship missiles.
Aircraft carriers are like moving islands for the country. Just 5 countries have aircraft carrier which are very heavy investment and employ most sophisticated technology. Defence development tried to keep it nearly undetectable on radar with its minimum signature and stealth deployment. Simultaneously, it has its own defence systems. India has been developing anti missile technology indigenously as well as with Israel. Destroyer ships too assist the carrier in protecting the seas as well as themselves.
Coming to submarines.
They provide nuclear deterrence and possibility of second line of attack. They are not easily detectable being under water and use of tech. Nuclear launch capable submarines is the reply to attack threats of nuclear weapons. Just 4 other countries have such capability.
隨著印度地位的提高，它應該加強防禦，保護主要的通信線路(即海上航線)，並加強其在周邊地區和其他地區的存在。印度的地理位置是印度洋之所以被命名為印度洋的原因。因此印度需要強大的海軍。其中，潛艇和航空母艦正是強大海軍的重要組成部分。
現在的問題是，它們是不是很容易被反艦飛彈擊中。
航空母艦就像是國家的移動島嶼。全世界只有5個國家擁有航空母艦，投資額非常龐大，使用了最先進的技術。國防研發希望降低其信號並配備隱形設備，令雷達無法探測到航母。同時，它有自己的防禦系統。印度一直在自主研發反飛彈技術，同時也在與以色列合作。驅逐艦也幫助航母保護海洋及他們自身。
至於潛艇。
他們提供核威懾和第二輪攻擊的可能性。它們在水下不容易被探測到。核潛艇的發射能力是對核武器攻擊威脅的回應。目前全世界只有4個國家有這樣的能力。
Samved Iyer
Never forget that aircraft carriers show how much power you can project away from your own land.
You may think that aircraft carriers are very vulnerable to attacks. Sure they are, but they are never alone. Several warships accompany it for its protection.
And since aircraft carriers are so huge, they can be used for transporting very easily. Fighter jets of Navy can easily project dominance over the ocean.
That is why they are so important. Infact, very large types of aircraft carriers are called supercarriers and they are even more formidable since they have a larger capacity to carry aircrafts and forces. INS Vishal which is being developed by Indian Navy, will be a supercarrier.
永遠不要忘記，航空母艦能讓你展示在遠離自己國土的地方投射出多大的實力。
你可能認為航空母艦很容易受到攻擊。當然是，但他們從不孤單。為了保護航母，時刻都有軍艦隨行左右。
而且因為航空母艦十分龐大，它們可以用於運輸。海軍的戰鬥機可以很容易地在海洋上佔據優勢。
這就是為什麼它們如此重要的原因。事實上，非常大的航空母艦被稱為超級航母，它們更為可怕，因為它們有更大的能力來運載飛機和軍隊。印度海軍正在開發的Vishal號就將成為一艘超級航母。
Dhananjay Gandage
We need 3 aircraft carriers one each in Arabian sea and bay of Bengal while one can be under refit as it is constantly required.
in addition land based sukhois and LCAs and rafales when they come will serve as a backup
we also need to scale up the order of MIG 29K from 45 to at least 90
So that while 60 aircrafts will alwez b at sea 30 will b as back up landbased
also explore if no of sukhoi can be increased from 270 to 300
No of LCA should be increased to 180 from present requirement of 120
In short we need at least 100 aircrafts each on the western and the eastern sea fronts as a back up for carrier battlegroups
India has a peninsula to target penninsular india through carrier based aircrafts any CBG should come at least up to 1000 kms near the land mass. In that scenario they will b sitting ducks for these land based aircrafts as range of all above aircrafts is at least more 2000kms.
Plus land based anti ship ballistic missiles. Develop agni missiles as land based anti ship ballistic missile variants as well by modifying their guidance system with a range of at least 3500 kms
I.e. just upto agni 3 should be modified to anti ship ballistic missile variant and station them in each coastal state on east and west and also in andaman and lakshwaseep islands
This will make Indian ocean and indian navy impregnable
我們需要3艘航空母艦，阿拉伯海和孟加拉灣上各部署一艘，而還有一艘可以輪流靠港整修，因為航母經常需要整修。
此外，陸基的蘇霍伊、LCAs和陣風戰機將作為支援。
我們還需要把MIG 29K的訂單從45架增加到至少90架。
因此，當60架飛機在海上飛行時，還有30架可以作為備用機。
另外，蘇霍伊的數量是否能從270架增加到300架。
輕型戰鬥機的數量應該從現在的120架增加到180架。
簡而言之，我們需要至少100架飛機分別在西海和東海作為航母戰鬥群的後盾
印度有一個半島，為了通過艦載機瞄準印度，任何CBG都應該至少接近陸地1000公裡。在那種情況下，他們將成為這些陸基飛機的活靶子，因為這些飛機的射程至少都超過2000公裡。
加上陸基反艦彈道飛彈。研發烈火飛彈，作為陸基反艦彈道飛彈的改型，並修改他們的制導系統，射程至少達到3500公裡。
也就是說，烈火3應該被修改為反艦彈道飛彈，並將其部署在東部和西部的每個邦以及安達曼和拉克什瓦澤普群島。
這將使印度洋和印度海軍堅不可摧。
Shumayel Liton
It's merely a matter of strategy. Some countries choose to invest in the gun and some in the bullet. India has chosen to invest in the gun. But it is true that these days aircraft carriers and frigates are sitting ducks in the ocean. With hypersonic antishipping technologies getting inducted, these ships will find themself blown up without even detecting incoming missiles.
這只是戰略問題。有些國家選擇把錢投入在槍枝上，有些國家選擇把錢投入在子彈上。印度選擇了投資槍枝。但是，現在的航空母艦和護衛艦確實是海上的活靶子。隨著高超音速反艦技術的引入，這些艦艇在發現自己被炸毀時都無法探測到來襲的飛彈。
Kamal Bakhtiani
Do you think destroying an Aircraft carrier or Submarine is as easy as shooting someone across the LOC, an Aircraft carrier has so many Fixed wings and helicopters, missiles, torpedoes, guns, experienced personnel.
你認為摧毀一艘航空母艦或潛艇就像向實際控制線對面的人開槍那麼容易嗎？一艘航空母艦擁有無數固定翼、直升機、飛彈、魚雷、大炮和經驗豐富的人員。