China Steams Ahead with New Carrier, While India Waits for Approval

The commencement of sea trials for China's colossal aircraft carrier, the Fujian, casts a spotlight on the evolving balance of power in the Indian Ocean Region.

This behemoth, displacing a staggering 80,000 metric tons, signifies China's ambitious naval modernization program. This Type-003 class warship ranks as the world's third-largest carrier, behind only by the U.S. Navy's Nimitz and Gerald R. Ford class giants. The Fujian serves as a potent symbol of China's strategic aspiration to become a dominant maritime power.

While China surges forward, India's plans for its next aircraft carrier, the IAC-2, remain stalled, awaiting crucial government approval. This disparity in pace underscores the differing strategic priorities between the two nations.

China's Rapid Naval Expansion​

China's naval expansion has been nothing short of remarkable. In 2012, they commissioned their first aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, followed by the launch of the Shandong in 2019. This trajectory reflects China's audacious goal of possessing over 10 operational carriers by 2050.

India's Naval Considerations​

India, a pioneer in Asian carrier operations, acquired its first aircraft carrier, the HMS Hercules, from the United Kingdom in 1961. Today, the Indian Navy operates two carriers: the INS Vikramaditya (procured from Russia) and the recently commissioned INS Vikrant, India's first domestically built carrier (IAC-1).

However, China's growing presence in the Indian Ocean Region necessitates that India strengthens its own naval capabilities. This urgency is further amplified by the delay in approving the IAC-2 program.

The IAC-2 and the Debate​

The proposed IAC-2 would displace 45,000 tons and is estimated to cost approximately ₹40,000 crore (roughly $4.8 billion USD). This carrier, to be built by Cochin Shipyard Limited, would be modeled after the recently launched INS Vikrant.

A key factor contributing to the delay in approving the IAC-2 is the ongoing debate within the Indian military establishment. This debate centers on the relative importance of aircraft carriers versus submarines in safeguarding India's maritime interests.

While submarines excel in covert operations aimed at denying the enemy the use of specific maritime areas, aircraft carriers provide crucial power projection and sea control capabilities.

Sea control involves the coordinated deployment of warships, aircraft, helicopters, and amphibious forces to maintain dominance over a particular maritime region.

The Formidable Fujian​

The Fujian boasts several cutting-edge features, including an advanced Catapult Assisted Take-Off & Barrier Arrested Recovery (CATOBAR) system with an innovative electromagnetic aircraft launch system (EMALS).

Launched in June 2022 from Shanghai's Jiangnan Shipyard, this 316-meter-long behemoth is expected to enter service in 2026.

With an estimated top speed of 31 knots and the capacity to accommodate 3,000 personnel, the Fujian is the largest aircraft carrier ever built outside the United States. It is powered by conventional steam turbines with diesel generators.

Looking Ahead​

The upcoming sea trials of the Fujian are expected to span over a year, with a focus on evaluating the reliability of its propulsion and electrical systems.

China plans to equip the carrier with upgraded versions of its J-15 fighter jets, alongside next-generation aircraft like the J-35 stealth fighter, the KJ-600 early warning aircraft, and the JL-10 advanced trainer jet.

India's wait for the IAC-2's approval creates a strategic quandary. As China's naval power surges, India faces growing pressure to expedite its own naval modernization efforts to maintain a credible maritime deterrent in the Indian Ocean Region.

 

[Shrujanam Syama]

In theory, we can build a 80,000 ton carrier. However, besides financing, we are also a tad short in technology, unless you want a massive STOBAR supercarrier.

Technologies such as an indigenous electromagnetic catapult system are still in the small-scale prototype stage. It'll take a few years before we can get those going. Of course, we can buy stuff like that. Indeed, the US offered us a set of 3 EMALS plus AAG for INS Vishal, but that 2018 offer was for 1 billion USD, which is a tad too high.

What I propose, instead, is this: If we start work on IAC-II in 2026 (which means a green-lighting in the next 3 or so months), we can have IAC-II entering service in 2035-36. That would allow us almost 7 years from now to finish work on our local EMALS system, and integrate that on IAC-III, which would start construction in 2034-35, and would be commissioned in 2045-47.

Nuclear propulsion is another story. However, with BARC working on the 190 MW reactors for the Project 75A and S3-class submarines, we could use those on IAC-III, and the next 6-8 years would be sufficient to get those going as well.

Why are you so hooked on EMALS? Use simple steam catapult. It has been working fine for 7 decades. Why the sudden craze for EMALS?

 

[Anant]

Why are you so hooked on EMALS? Use simple steam catapult. It has been working fine for 7 decades. Why the sudden craze for EMALS?

Because of how steam catapults operate. To operate steam catapults, you need pressurised steam. Now, having some form of steam turbines on the ship allows you to get pressurised steam.

To get steam catapults, we would need one of three things: Either a conventionally-powered carrier that has a steam turbine propulsion system (similar to what Fujian has), or a nuclear-powered carrier (similar to American and French carriers), or a diesel or gas-turbine powered carrier that has a steam generation plant onboard.

If you have either of the first two things (that is, you have some form of steam-based propulsion), that gets you the necessary steam fairly easily without taking up additional power.

However, if you have to put a dedicated steam generation plant, that has challenges. Steam generation is, in itself, a very energy-inefficient process. You would need a very large amount of fuel to generate the adequate amount of steam for prolonged periods, which would mean either eating into the carrier's range, or having space specifically set aside for this fuel, which then may well impact other parameters of the carrier.

That is not to say you can't have steam catapults on a gas turbine-powered carrier. However, it is a deal that entails massive compromises. The Brits actually looked to do this back when the QEs were being designed, but a combination of this inefficiency and the additional cost of a CATOBAR carrier meant the QEs would be STOBAR ships.

For us to reasonably have steam catapults, we would either have to go back to a steam turbine propulsion system (which the Navy has been trying to put behind), or move ahead to nuclear propulsion (which is still some time away).

Also, there are advantages and disadvantages associated with both steam catapults as well as electromagnetic catapults, but the main reason I mention EMALS is the aforementioned challenge.

 

[charminar_waale_ismail_bhai]

For now, we should first focus and plan out a sustained three carrier force, and then move towards a four-carrier force. As things are, IAC-III seems to be coming at a point where INS Vikramaditya would be atleast a few years past her retirement age.

That said, with sufficient governmental willpower, we could go for IAC-III (INS Vishal) itself to be nuclear-powered and use CATOBAR. That would allow for IAC-IV (Vikrant's replacement or a fourth carrier) to be identical, making operations simpler.

In theory atleast, we could fit a single EMALS on IAC-II along the angled deck. It would allow for heavier launches, and would give us a decade's worth of operational and maintenance expertise on such systems.

Also, our PSU shipyards need to do a lot of catching up to do as far as optimizing supply chain is concerned.

The INS Vikrant saga should be an eye-opener.

While Cochin Shipyard wasted years for the want of DMR-249 steel to first import from Russia and then when that did not work out, for the steel to be then researched by DMRL and then manufactured at SAIL Bokaro. This delay and reinvention of wheel could have been avoided simply by contracting TATA steel for the steel, as they had the technology to produce and serve the order for high strength marine steel. In this case, CSL was ready to import or delay the project while another PSU would first learn and then deliver at its pace, but they will never reach out to private sector. This policy of untouchability of desi private sector is the bane of our defence procurement policy.

CSL could have saved so many years by being pragmatic. Later in the decade, TATA steel, through Its UK division (ex. Chorus-Steel) later fulfilled order for similar high quality marine steel for HMS Queen Elizabeth.

Alas, lessons in supply chain are seldom appreciated by our PSUs.

 

[charminar_waale_ismail_bhai]

Because of how steam catapults operate. To operate steam catapults, you need pressurised steam. Now, having some form of steam turbines on the ship allows you to get pressurised steam.

To get steam catapults, we would need one of three things: Either a conventionally-powered carrier that has a steam turbine propulsion system (similar to what Fujian has), or a nuclear-powered carrier (similar to American and French carriers), or a diesel or gas-turbine powered carrier that has a steam generation plant onboard.

If you have either of the first two things (that is, you have some form of steam-based propulsion), that gets you the necessary steam fairly easily without taking up additional power.

However, if you have to put a dedicated steam generation plant, that has challenges. Steam generation is, in itself, a very energy-inefficient process. You would need a very large amount of fuel to generate the adequate amount of steam for prolonged periods, which would mean either eating into the carrier's range, or having space specifically set aside for this fuel, which then may well impact other parameters of the carrier.

That is not to say you can't have steam catapults on a gas turbine-powered carrier. However, it is a deal that entails massive compromises. The Brits actually looked to do this back when the QEs were being designed, but a combination of this inefficiency and the additional cost of a CATOBAR carrier meant the QEs would be STOBAR ships.

For us to reasonably have steam catapults, we would either have to go back to a steam turbine propulsion system (which the Navy has been trying to put behind), or move ahead to nuclear propulsion (which is still some time away).

Also, there are advantages and disadvantages associated with both steam catapults as well as electromagnetic catapults, but the main reason I mention EMALS is the aforementioned challenge.

A bit of trivia, QE class AC's are atually designed to be converted to CATOBAR as and when need arises.

Also Steam Catapult are out of the season because they are a maintenance nightmare due to the number of moving parts involved.

Comparison with a Steam locomotive against an electric locomotive would not be stretching logic too long in this case.

 

[Sir Capt]

Develop electronic warfare platforms to cyber attack China's growing integrated fleet. This ACC surely has an electronic integrated mission system which is hackable. India needs to focus on cyber warfare.

 

[SK]

It makes no sense for India to match China for every Equipment as there is a huge difference in the Economy & Technological prowess of the 2 Nations.

Indian Govt & Navy's focus should on development of 2 Additional Carriers on the basis of INS-Vikrant. If possible, both new ACs must be developed as CATOBAR Carriers.

 

[Shrujanam Syama]

Because of how steam catapults operate. To operate steam catapults, you need pressurised steam. Now, having some form of steam turbines on the ship allows you to get pressurised steam.

To get steam catapults, we would need one of three things: Either a conventionally-powered carrier that has a steam turbine propulsion system (similar to what Fujian has), or a nuclear-powered carrier (similar to American and French carriers), or a diesel or gas-turbine powered carrier that has a steam generation plant onboard.

If you have either of the first two things (that is, you have some form of steam-based propulsion), that gets you the necessary steam fairly easily without taking up additional power.

However, if you have to put a dedicated steam generation plant, that has challenges. Steam generation is, in itself, a very energy-inefficient process. You would need a very large amount of fuel to generate the adequate amount of steam for prolonged periods, which would mean either eating into the carrier's range, or having space specifically set aside for this fuel, which then may well impact other parameters of the carrier.

That is not to say you can't have steam catapults on a gas turbine-powered carrier. However, it is a deal that entails massive compromises. The Brits actually looked to do this back when the QEs were being designed, but a combination of this inefficiency and the additional cost of a CATOBAR carrier meant the QEs would be STOBAR ships.

For us to reasonably have steam catapults, we would either have to go back to a steam turbine propulsion system (which the Navy has been trying to put behind), or move ahead to nuclear propulsion (which is still some time away).

Also, there are advantages and disadvantages associated with both steam catapults as well as electromagnetic catapults, but the main reason I mention EMALS is the aforementioned challenge.

You are correct about having steam turbines for catapult. But EMALS need huge electricity which makes it mandatory to have nuclear power regardless. So, steam turbine can either have conventional steam turbine engine or nuclear power whereas EMALS must only have nuclear power. I don't see how EMALS is better since it lowers options. Also, EMALS is highly maintenance intensive due to complex parts whereas steam turbines are simpler.

India does not have catapults as India does not want nuclear power. The reason why Russia also does not have nuclear carrier is very similar - the threat is nearby which means nuclear carriers are at higher risk of damage & will need higher downtimes during wars. Diesel carriers need much less downtimes for similar damages as shutting down diesel engines is easy & safety issues won't arise as with nuclear reactors.

This is why Indian carriers will always be STOBAR - it is much simpler, cheaper, faster and easier to maintain STOBAR ships during wars. But as compared to EMALS, steam catapult is way better, although India will never have either

 

[Anant]

You are correct about having steam turbines for catapult. But EMALS need huge electricity which makes it mandatory to have nuclear power regardless. So, steam turbine can either have conventional steam turbine engine or nuclear power whereas EMALS must only have nuclear power. I don't see how EMALS is better since it lowers options. Also, EMALS is highly maintenance intensive due to complex parts whereas steam turbines are simpler.

India does not have catapults as India does not want nuclear power. The reason why Russia also does not have nuclear carrier is very similar - the threat is nearby which means nuclear carriers are at higher risk of damage & will need higher downtimes during wars. Diesel carriers need much less downtimes for similar damages as shutting down diesel engines is easy & safety issues won't arise as with nuclear reactors.

This is why Indian carriers will always be STOBAR - it is much simpler, cheaper, faster and easier to maintain STOBAR ships during wars. But as compared to EMALS, steam catapult is way better, although India will never have either

Russia doesn't have CATOBAR carriers because they never got around to building them: There were plans for a CATOBAR carrier under Project OREL, which would have been preceded by the two Ulyanovsk-class carriers (nuclear-powered STOBAR carriers of 66,000 tons), and the two Kuznetsov-class carriers. Since the USSR collapsed, they never got around to building those, and the infrastructure was all lost to Ukraine. The more recent Project 23000 designs do call for nuclear power, but unless they develop catapults from scratch, they plan for a STOBAR design there as well.

We haven't gone for catapults in recent years for the very simple reason that it was never practical. Remember that the first INS Vikrant served as a CATOBAR carrier into the 1980s prior to her Sea Harrier refit. Since the new Vikrant was never planned to be powered by steam, and because we didn't have a steam catapult system available (indigenous or purchased), we went with STOBAR, even though the initial designs for Vikrant (made in conjunction with DCNS in the late 1980s and early 1990s) called for a CATOBAR design.

That said, your point about EMALS requiring a massive amount of power is correct. The power requirement is certainly there, but as China is showing, it is possible to get an EMALS system on a conventionally-powered carrier. Surely they wouldn't have put the entire system otherwise. Whether using EMALS on such a ship entails any compromises in operation (and I have a feeling it does) remains to be seen.EMALS also has its own set of maintenance challenges, and while these are definitely greater than the maintenance challenges of steam catapults, the technology is still in its infancy. As it matures, we will see a lot of these issues being accounted for in design, and therefore not occurring operationally.

STOBAR has its own set of advantages, but it is better when limited to smaller carriers. The thing is that when you move towards supercarrier-sized ships, these ships are your principal power projection tools (besides things like SSBNs), at which point you don't want these ships to have obvious operational constraints such as the limited payload on aircraft being launched.

The biggest reason India has never gone for nuclear-powered carriers is because of financial and technological constraints, not a lack of willpower. Nuclear ships are very expensive, and getting marine nuclear propulsion system right is no easy feat. Even today, we cannot arguably afford a nuclear supercarrier, and a suitable reactor is still in the works.

Going forwards, we need to move towards a paradigm of having CATOBAR carriers in the long-term. For now, IAC-II will be a STOBAR carrier, and a half-sister to Vikrant. IAC-III will be CATOBAR, and if things work out, nuclear-powered. However, we could look to maintain a STOBAR force using the proposed LHDs (under the MRSV program), which would allow for flexible operations and better force projection.

 

[BCharlie]

It will take at least 25 years to make something like Fujian if CSL starts laying foundation today.

So yeah, by 2049 or later, India will respond.

Sir, 2049 is being very optimistic hoping that we achieve it by then. The way we do things, 2049 is a sun too far.

 

[Anant]

It makes no sense for India to match China for every Equipment as there is a huge difference in the Economy & Technological prowess of the 2 Nations.

Indian Govt & Navy's focus should on development of 2 Additional Carriers on the basis of INS-Vikrant. If possible, both new ACs must be developed as CATOBAR Carriers.

For now, the Navy can only afford one more carrier if other asset acquisitions such as SSKs, SSNs, MCMVs, replenishment oilers, etc. are to proceed. As for that one carrier, we could go for a CATOBAR variant or Vikrant (ideal scenario), or we could go for an enlarged Vikrant design with an IEP system for propulsion. Maybe even both, who knows?

 

[Anant]

A bit of trivia, QE class AC's are atually designed to be converted to CATOBAR as and when need arises.

Also Steam Catapult are out of the season because they are a maintenance nightmare due to the number of moving parts involved.

Comparison with a Steam locomotive against an electric locomotive would not be stretching logic too long in this case.

The QEs can be converted to CATOBAR on paper, but that would entail a fairly significant refit. I mean, if we are being very technical, even Vikrant can be converted to CATOBAR configuration with a large-enough refit, though a QE conversion would be easier.

Oh, and while what you say about steam catapults' mechanical challenges is true, EMALS is even more of a headache, though being a nascent technology, a lot of the issues are being worked out.

 

[Aayush Pratap]

We cannot and should not match them platform for platform. Need to work on building our asymmetric capabilities with cheaper platforms.

 

[Hari Sud]

A nuclear attack submarine will easily neuterlize this Chinese carrier.

 

[Anant]

A nuclear attack submarine will easily neuterlize this Chinese carrier.

Not exactly... A SSN is certainly a major threat, but a carrier isn't easy to find, and would have a fairly large escort group.

 

[Bharat007]

China is aiming for 5 AC by 2035. It is too much. No one can match that speedy development of PLAN but India should make and finish IAC 2 project before 2035.

 

[Bharat007]

A nuclear attack submarine will easily neuterlize this Chinese carrier.

Point of having AC in Chinese arm is to use it as force projection. To intimidate neighbours and harrass them by sending such behemoths in their backyard. Well, it may be easy to sink it but that doesn't mean we should overlook other uses of AC.

 

[Anant]

We have to come to the understanding that we can't match China tit-for-that. Our economy is less than a quarter of theirs. What we should do, however, is to set a force ratio target, and stay up with it.

That would entail, for now, building IAC-II as a copy of Vikrant, and then working on a larger IAC-III to replace Vikramaditya 20 years from now. With that done, we would have to double down on military modernisation and projects such as the Tejas Mk 2, AMCA, MRFA, FMBT/FRCV, FICV, new frigates, Project 18 destroyers, MCMVs, Project 75I/76 SSKs, Project 75A SSNs, etc. The list is massive, and we need to increase the pace.

 

[5powa]

We need more subs, low cost long range cruise missiles, mcmv and drones.Hybrid warfare.

 

[Sudha]

We need more subs, low cost long range cruise missiles, mcmv and drones.Hybrid warfare.

That is exactly what we need & not matching AC to AC. Let us fly 5 brahmos simultaneously to sink this AC. 🤣😂

 

[Sudha]

Not exactly... A SSN is certainly a major threat, but a carrier isn't easy to find, and would have a fairly large escort group.

Off course no one said it is easy. But we have the missiles to destroy it as well as the sats & surveilance planes to track it. Think it will be foolish for china to deploy it in Indian ocean for there are too many Indian assets available to destroy it. It is good to scare small nations with it. Hopefully Indian SSNs also will be ready by 2030