How Indian Navy Leveraging Cost-Effective Stealth Nuclear Subs Over Aircraft Carriers to Counter China's Growing Assertiveness in IOR

indian-stealth-submarine-webp.890


The Indian Navy is facing a critical juncture in its strategic planning as it seeks to maintain maritime dominance and safeguard national security in the increasingly complex Indian Ocean Region (IOR). A key decision revolves around resource allocation between nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers.

Evidence suggests that the Indian Navy is prioritizing investment in nuclear-powered submarines (SSNs) over aircraft carriers as a more cost-effective and strategically advantageous approach to counter China's growing assertiveness in the region.

SSNs offer unmatched strategic advantages, particularly in terms of deterrence. Their ability to remain submerged for extended periods provides unparalleled stealth capabilities crucial for both defensive and offensive operations.

This makes them ideal for a second-strike capability, vital under India's "no first use" nuclear policy. Furthermore, SSNs serve as a potent deterrent beyond nuclear warfare, contributing to a credible threat perception among potential adversaries.

The Indian Ocean is witnessing increased strategic competition, particularly with China's expanding naval presence. SSNs, with their ability to patrol vast areas without surfacing, are ideally suited for surveillance, intelligence gathering, and sea denial strategies.

Experts have highlighted that India's nuclear-powered attack submarines could significantly alter the balance of power in the IOR, effectively countering China's naval expansion.

Compared to aircraft carriers, SSNs offer greater operational flexibility due to their endurance and speed. They are not reliant on external support for propulsion, allowing them to operate far from home bases without the logistical challenges that aircraft carriers face. Carriers require extensive support fleets, making them less cost-effective for stealth operations or when swift, covert movements are necessary.

Furthermore, the operational cost of maintaining an aircraft carrier significantly exceeds that of a nuclear submarine. Aircraft carriers, while powerful symbols of naval power, are also high-value targets, requiring a substantial escort fleet for protection, which escalates costs.

Submarines, on the other hand, can operate independently or with minimal support, providing a more cost-effective means of maintaining a persistent naval presence.

Advancements in missile technology and anti-ship/anti-aircraft systems have increased the vulnerability of aircraft carriers. Modern warfare is characterized by asymmetric threats, where submarines, with their inherent stealth, have a distinct advantage.

The Indian Navy's focus on SSNs aligns with this shift, emphasizing the importance of submarines capable of launching cruise missiles or torpedoes from hidden positions.

India's commitment to indigenous submarine technology under Project 75A further strengthens its position. This project aims to build six SSNs domestically, reducing reliance on foreign technology and enhancing national security through self-reliance.

The Indian Navy's planned expansion of its submarine fleet, coupled with its current emphasis on submarines over a third aircraft carrier, indicates a strategic shift towards a more sustainable and effective force structure.

This approach not only addresses immediate threats but also prepares for future naval engagements where sea control and denial will be critical.

By prioritizing SSNs, the Indian Navy is making a strategic investment in a cost-effective, versatile, and potent platform that is ideally suited to counter the evolving challenges in the Indian Ocean Region.

This approach allows India to effectively respond to China's growing assertiveness while maintaining a credible deterrent and ensuring its maritime dominance in the future.
 
Aircraft carriers are just sitting ducks.
Each Aircraft Carrier in US Navy need 2 Nuclear Attack Submarines for its protection in its armada.
So before having constructed at least 6 Nuclear Attack Submarines (2 for each Aircraft Carrier and 2 for spare) we must not go for building another Aircraft Carrier.
 
sink the enemy carrier, all jets gone
Sir ji, you dont have to sink a AC, just 3 to 4 torpedo or missile hits on one side tilts the AC; it becomes useless tub trying to float; No take off or landing at all.. just crew running to save their own lives;
 
India needs both as both are just as important. We should definitely have and construct more nuclear attack submarines and manufacture them as a priority as we don’t have any and it will take time to construct our first submarine and then production could begin.

As this takes place they can start working on a copy of the Vikrant carrier to reduce the costs by manufacturing and increasing the indigenous content rate even more.
 
Instead of building AIP submarines under P75 and P75I, we should just build small SSNs like China. With a small reactor, it has immense value. No need for 20 diesel-electric submarines. Just build 20 small SSNs instead. They can patrol shore areas plus go to blue water, and remain submerged for months.
Small SSNs are generally not value for money. This was realised by France with the Rubis-class SSN. Moreover, the main challenge with SSNs still remains: Even though you get near-unlimited range, SSNs are still very expensive to build, operate, and maintain.

Oh, and since you mentioned China, you do realise that the PLAN has a mixture of both SSKs and SSNs, right? They haven't gone the American way of having an all-SSN fleet. Only three nations have an all-SSN / SSBN fleet: The US, UK, and France. Of these. France and the UK maintain a relatively small fleet (10-11 boats in total), and act as a gear in a larger NATO force structure. The US has an all-SSN fleet because they have the money for that. Despite that, however, there have been increasing calls over the years for the US to have a small fleet of SSKs as well, since SSNs are far more expensive, and take far longer to build.
 
No, this is not a choice as SSNs/SSGNs cannot project power and mostly are a silent but potent threat to adversaries (either threaten choke points or perform land attack)…Bharat needs 3-4 Carrier Battle Groups, and 12 SSNs/SSGNs (besides 6 SSBNS as second strike triad) in the long term…
Sir, with all due respect, an all-SSN fleet makes little sense for India. It would be ridiculously expensive to build, operate, and maintain a nuclear submarine fleet large enough to maintain strategic deterrence and flexibility.
 
Most of the weapons nations buy end up being used during peace time. Aircraft carrier is mostly for overt show of strength, force projection during peace time activities. Otherwise , it has (or likely) become sitting duck during wars. Whereas, submarines are mostly used in covert ways. We indeed need Submarines the most for any eventuality, but we also need Aircraft carriers to mark our territory and as a symbol of our might during peace times.
Aircraft carriers have not been sitting ducks in any conflict to date, and with aircraft now having missiles capable of travelling increasingly-long ranges, the carriers usefulness is enhanced that much further.

A SSN is purely a wartime tool. That is, you can use it for attacking an enemy fleet, but practically nothing beyond that. A carrier gives you the flexibility of being used for attacking a fleet, defending strategic regions and chokwpoints, interdiction strikes, ground force support, wide-area coverage, reconnaissance, etc.

Not saying one is better than the other in all aspects, but a direct comparison is not possible since both are intended for different roles.
 
sink the enemy carrier, all jets gone
You do realise that it isn't as easy as just "Fire a hundred missiles and the enemy carrier is gone", right? There is a reason so many naval powers operate and continue to build carriers.
 
Sir ji, you dont have to sink a AC, just 3 to 4 torpedo or missile hits on one side tilts the AC; it becomes useless tub trying to float; No take off or landing at all.. just crew running to save their own lives;
And the same argument goes for a SSN. It isn't a difficult asset to mission-kill. Oh, and getting those 3 or 4 missile or torpedo hits on a carrier is far, far more difficult than you make it out to be.
 
Absolutely right to invest in nuclear submarines than vulnerable and expensive aircraft carriers. Two carriers with India with Rafale-M are more than enough to project power in Indian Ocean.
They aren't, if one is being entirely honest. Like any naval asset, you need redundancy. Having three carriers means you will have two ready to go most of the time unless someone bangles up refit schedules. Given our extensive coastline and the nature of strategic points in the IOR, a minimum of two operational carriers is needed, which means three in-service carriers.
 
Sir, with all due respect, an all-SSN fleet makes little sense for India. It would be ridiculously expensive to build, operate, and maintain a nuclear submarine fleet large enough to maintain strategic deterrence and flexibility.
Agree 100%. I was not clear on my position. I want us to prioritise SSNs, and build concurrent production lines with at least 1 SSN being built every 2 years starting 2035, while we complete the additional scorpenes, the 6 P75Is, but either go slow on P76s if we need a trade off…Further we need 4 IACs of bigger sizes, not necessarily 80k tons, but around 65k tons of 2 additional carriers besides a repeat of IAC2…

Meant by 2050 24 Nuclear subsof SSBNs, SGNs and SSNs and the rest around 30 SSKs; with 4 CBG!
 
India must make at least 18 SSNs of different size to rule IOR and two 65000 ton ACs for both flanks !
 
Meant by 2050 24 Nuclear subsof SSBNs, SGNs and SSNs and the rest around 30 SSKs; with 4 CBG!
That sounds good, but won't happen by any stretch, Sir. A more reasonable estimate would be 6-8 SSBNs, 0-2 SSGNs (depending on whether Arihant and Arighat get converted to SSGNs once larger SSBNs are in service), and 6-8 SSNs/SSGNs (depending on whether the P-77 boats get classified as SSNs or SSGNs), along with 30-ish SSKs, plus 3 CBGs. Anything more is highly unlikely.
 
Small SSNs are generally not value for money. This was realised by France with the Rubis-class SSN. Moreover, the main challenge with SSNs still remains: Even though you get near-unlimited range, SSNs are still very expensive to build, operate, and maintain.
Mass produce, cost will be less.
PLAN has a mixture of both SSKs and SSNs, right? They haven't gone the American way of having an all-SSN fleet.
China now only going for small SSNs instead of SSK
 
Mass produce, cost will be less.

China now only going for small SSNs instead of SSK
Um, nope. While mass production does reduce costs, SSNs are still going to be far more expensive than SSKs.

Oh, and China is building SSKs. They are building more Type 039A/B boats, and are testing out a few Type 039Cs. The next design is an experimental design called the Type 041, which is speculated to have a small nuclear reactor onboard, but unless that can be confirmed, we cannot say for sure. Moreover, unless China has decided to rewrite their naval doctrine very significantly, they will continue to build SSKs.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
3,643
Messages
38,643
Members
2,474
Latest member
padmanabhan ramasubban
Back
Top