Could India and France Build Aircraft Carriers Together? A Navy Veteran Thinks So

Folks, a former big boss of the Indian Navy, Admiral Arun Prakash, has started a buzz online that could make waves in how we build our warships. He's suggesting India and France team up and build their next major aircraft carriers at the same time!

What's the big deal, you ask? Well, the idea is to build France's fancy new carrier, the PA-NG, over there and our homegrown Indigenous Aircraft Carrier-III (IAC-3) right here in India. Admiral Prakash believes this would be a win-win. We'd get to learn from the French, experts in shipbuilding, and they could tap into our knowledge. Plus, maybe we could even snag some know-how for our dream of nuclear-powered warships. And, of course, both countries could split the work and make the whole thing a smoother ride.

India's already shown how serious we are about aircraft carriers. We've got the IAC-I in action, a mighty ship at 45,000 tons, and the IAC-II on the way. But the IAC-III? That's a whole different beast, a potential 60,000-ton powerhouse.

Meanwhile, the French aren't messing around either. The PA-NG looks set to be incredible – around 75,000 tons, packed with cutting-edge tech like those cool electromagnetic catapults to launch planes. You throw in fighters like the Rafale M (which we're already getting comfy with), and that's a force to be reckoned with.

So, picture this: master shipbuilders from both countries sharing ideas, maybe even swapping engineers. It's the kind of partnership that makes India and France stronger together on the high seas.

Of course, it's not all smooth sailing. Building two monster carriers at once? That's a tricky dance, even for the best planners. And nuclear technology… well, let's just say sharing those secrets is a whole different ball game.

Still, it's a bold idea. The kind that could change how India builds its future navy. What do you think? Should we go for it?

 

[Pink Panther]

No, they have one ancient carrier, even old and ancient tech than Vikrant, how can they teach us, may be we can teach them, no body needs to teach us anything at least in ship building.

 

[Kira]

Constructing only a single large AC does not make much economic or even strategic sense.Instead it will be better for India to leverage experience gained from IAC-1 to construct a larger IAC-2 that too if resources available IN in near future allow.

 

[Vyom]

Currently 2 aircraft carriers are enough; we should focus on swarms of drones, remember billion dollar aircraft carrier can be sunk by few million dollar swarms of drones

 

[Pramkumar]

India better to go on its own as indian technology in CBG is much advanced than Europe and China. Only india lacks nos.

 

[shivkumar sinha]

This is an utopian idea full of contradictions. French are hesitant to share its nuclear propulsion technology in submarines. Why will they do so in aircraft carriers? Let us enhance trust by making a 110-130 KN thrust jet engine with SAFRAN ,crucial for Indian AMCA and next generation fighters . Indian nuclear scientist can deliver on our 190 MW miniaturised submarines nuclear propulsion, that can be after slight modification , used in aircraft carrier propulsion.

 

[Bharat007]

Currently 2 aircraft carriers are enough; we should focus on swarms of drones, remember billion dollar aircraft carrier can be sunk by few million dollar swarms of drones

Not enough. As per Navy, India needs atleast 3. One each for Eastern and Western seas, and another 1 to replace whenever one of them is in refit and maintenance. Refit and maintenance takes years.

 

[Anant]

No, they have one ancient carrier, even old and ancient tech than Vikrant, how can they teach us, may be we can teach them, no body needs to teach us anything at least in ship building.

What old carrier? The Charles de Gaulle is arguably the most capable non-American carrier in the world today. Vikrant, for all her advantages, is still less capable than the CdG is.

 

[Anant]

While this is a very interesting suggestion, something like this will simply not materialise. I'll cover a few points in each phase of the project if this were to go through:

1. Design and development phase: This is arguably the only phase where collaboration would work out. Simply put, a lot of systems and design elements can be common between the two carrier designs, there are limitations to this. A lot of subsystems on a supercarrier, and a nuclear-powered one at that, are highly secretive, and will not be shared. There is also the point that the Navy is favouring IEP for IAC-III. Hence, you can't have a common design, since the different powerplants and other subsystems would mean a significantly different design. Moreover, the French are already in the process of, or have finished, work on a number of subsystems. For us to start work on these would put us far behind to begin with.
2. Construction phase: The French envision to start work on PA-NG in 2028-29, lay down the ship in 2031, with sea trials aimed to start in 2035-36, and commissioning in 2038-39, just in time to replace the Charles de Gaulle, which will leave service between 2038 and 2041. We are currently working on IAC-II. Even if the contract were signed tomorrow, we wouldn't have the ship in sea trials until 2029-30 at the earliest, and quite possibly until 2031-32. CSL doesn't necessarily have the infrastructure to support two carriers at once, and so we would have problems physically building the ship until IAC-II went for sea trials. Moreover, even if we could start construction alongside the French, our shipbuilding industry is still far less efficient, which means construction would inevitably fall behind.

The challenges involved in this sort of project are very obvious, and one only has to see at the PA2 carrier project that France had, where they planned a second, conventionally-powered carrier to serve alongside the CdG, with this ship planned to be an enlarged Queen Elizabeth. That eventually did not materialise, so the chances of this collaboration working out are even more remote. Unfortunately, while this was a good idea at some point, that ship has already sailed, and the timeline are too different.

That said, as it just so happens, under the present timelines, the Japanese would be looking to replace the Hyūga-class in the early 2040s, with the ships poised to leave service in 2044 and 2046 respectively. If the Japanese were to, let's say, want to go for a 60,000 ton carrier to replace them, then were could partner up with them for IAC-III. By this point, IAC-II would also either be in service or sea trials, so that sort of partnership would be possible. Of course, that would restrict IAC-III to be 60,000-75,000 tons in displacement, and be a conventionally-powered CATOBAR carrier, since unless something massive changes until then, Japan may well stay away from military uses of nuclear technology, even if it is for propulsion.

 

[Anant]

Constructing only a single large AC does not make much economic or even strategic sense.Instead it will be better for India to leverage experience gained from IAC-1 to construct a larger IAC-2 that too if resources available IN in near future allow.

An interesting idea for this would be, if, say, we were to upscale Vikrant's design to 50,000 or 55,000 tons, and go for either IEP (more likely) or even a CATOBAR setup (quite unlikely).

On one hand, this sort of modification would leave the door open in the future for go for an even larger carrier in the form of IAC-III, and the tested technologies would give us a lot of knowledge and experience.

On the other hand, that may well leave us with three different-sized carriers of differing capabilities once IAC-III were to enter service to replace Vikramaditya.

 

[NSR]

All French proposals about Rafales, Barracuda nuclear submarines, Scorpenes, fighter engines, etc are only unreachable trial ballons in the sky.
Do not fall for their promises of delivering Moon and getting India hooked on to every product of their like Mirage-2000 and upgrades, Scorpens and upgrades, etc

Just go with domestic fighters and P-75Is and P-76 submarines.

If India can develop its own Astra Mk III with 250 to 300 kms range BVRAAM, then it will be in strong position if it can mount them on all of its fighters.

 

[ASHOK CARROL]

Carrier development and technology must be only sought from Americans including 220 -250 Mw nuclear reactors with once in a lifetime Refuelling , Emals and other aircraft management systems . The aircraft carrier technology Indo American group be authorised to expedite the deal . Carrier borne AWACS ANTISUBMARINE helicopters , Launch and recovery Machinery must all be looked into . Training of Indian pilots , engineers , Deck officers and technical personnel on American carriers be sought immediately to create core groups for construction , operations , maintainence .Since the carrier will sail well into 80s the size be kept over 85000 T with capacity to carry 75 to 85 aircraft .

 

[Rational Guy]

India needs more SSKs and SSNs and SSBNs. That should be the focus now. Along with UUVs.

 

[Pink Panther]

What old carrier? The Charles de Gaulle is arguably the most capable non-American carrier in the world today. Vikrant, for all her advantages, is still less capable than the CdG is.

Charles De Gulle is a old Carrier.

 

[Pink Panther]

All French proposals about Rafales, Barracuda nuclear submarines, Scorpenes, fighter engines, etc are only unreachable trial ballons in the sky.
Do not fall for their promises of delivering Moon and getting India hooked on to every product of their like Mirage-2000 and upgrades, Scorpens and upgrades, etc

Just go with domestic fighters and P-75Is and P-76 submarines.

If India can develop its own Astra Mk III with 250 to 300 kms range BVRAAM, then it will be in strong position if it can mount them on all of its fighters.

Like Politicians blabbering something during election and forgetting for the next 5 years.

 

[Pink Panther]

Carrier development and technology must be only sought from Americans including 220 -250 Mw nuclear reactors with once in a lifetime Refuelling , Emals and other aircraft management systems . The aircraft carrier technology Indo American group be authorised to expedite the deal . Carrier borne AWACS ANTISUBMARINE helicopters , Launch and recovery Machinery must all be looked into . Training of Indian pilots , engineers , Deck officers and technical personnel on American carriers be sought immediately to create core groups for construction , operations , maintainence .Since the carrier will sail well into 80s the size be kept over 85000 T with capacity to carry 75 to 85 aircraft .

British are also good in conventional diesel hybrid electric propulsion.

 

[desigandu]

Yes, India should explore 65-75000 Ton carriers with EMALS and nuclear propulsion with France for codevelopment, but Indian carriers made in India...we may need 2 such carriers to be delivered 5 years apart starting 2035 (if possible), if we can start now...this may reduce cost, increase interoperability and give India access to carrier nuclear propulsion (need HEU with 2/3 reactors of 150MW each).

 

[desigandu]

This is an utopian idea full of contradictions. French are hesitant to share its nuclear propulsion technology in submarines. Why will they do so in aircraft carriers? Let us enhance trust by making a 110-130 KN thrust jet engine with SAFRAN ,crucial for Indian AMCA and next generation fighters . Indian nuclear scientist can deliver on our 190 MW miniaturised submarines nuclear propulsion, that can be after slight modification , used in aircraft carrier propulsion.

for nuclear propulsion carriers of the future with huge energy needs due to DEWs, we will need about 3 - 190MW reactors that too require refueling every 10 years...we should strive for 250MW reactors with HEU say 3 of them would be ideal - but we can't build such a reactor till about 2040, even if we start after getting the 190MW one in place (which is essential for S5 SSBNs and Project Alpha SSNs)...Americans are the best at nuclear propulsion but will not share with us unless we become an ally (even Aukus export control ITAR exceptions are taking time for Australia and UK)...Given all this we should build IAC-2 (Vikrant class 45000 Ton with conventional propulsion potentially with IEC), and in parallel launch design efforts for 2 65000 Ton carriers (again conventional with IEC and potentially EMALs) to be fielded starting 2035-2040, if not later...After these we may be in a position for HEU 250MW nuclear propulsion which may also help with S6 (20000 Ton SSBNs) and Project Alpha 2 (10000 Ton Class SSNs/SSGNs) in the 2040s and beyond...We don't have too much money, no one will readily share nuclear propulsion and indigenous development will take time - are the realities...We must put a formal NSS in place, before embarking and thinking about very expensive platforms with long lead times..

 

[Raja Parekh]

South Korea is a better option.

 

[Anant]

Charles De Gulle is a old Carrier.

It isn't old as far as carriers go. She was commissioned in 2001, which puts her at a bit over half of her projected 40 year life. Moreover, as I mentioned, she is still more capable than any non-supercarrier today.