India Embarks on Third Aircraft Carrier Project to Bolster Naval Dominance in Indian Ocean

India has announced plans to construct a third aircraft carrier, marking a significant step in bolstering its naval capabilities in the Indian Ocean region. The decision is driven by the need to maintain a strategic edge amidst escalating tensions with China and the ongoing conflict with Pakistan.

The Indian Ocean holds immense strategic importance for the country, serving as a crucial conduit for trade and energy imports. With China's expanding naval presence in the region and unresolved border disputes, India perceives a growing threat to its national interests. The volatile relationship with Pakistan further underscores the necessity for a robust naval defense in the Arabian Sea.


The proposed aircraft carrier is expected to be constructed domestically, aligning with India's broader initiative to achieve self-reliance in defense manufacturing. This indigenization effort encompasses not only aircraft carriers but also a diverse range of naval equipment. However, concerns persist regarding potential delays in the project's timeline, mirroring the challenges encountered during the development of India's first indigenous carrier, INS Vikrant.

India currently operates two aircraft carriers: INS Vikramaditya, a modified Kiev-class carrier procured from Russia, and INS Vikrant, the first indigenously-built carrier commissioned in 2022. The addition of a third carrier would significantly enhance India's naval power projection capabilities, enabling it to better address a two-front war scenario.


The decision to pursue a third carrier has been met with mixed reactions. Proponents argue that it is a necessary step to maintain India's regional dominance and deter potential adversaries. Critics, however, raise concerns about the financial implications of such a project and question the feasibility of indigenous production given past delays.

The carrier's success will hinge on India's ability to leverage its technological expertise and streamline the indigenous manufacturing process to ensure timely delivery. The project's progress will undoubtedly be closely monitored by both regional players and global observers.

 

[Anant]

While IAC-II is a welcome future addition to the Navy, we should also be starting work on IAC-III to replace Vikramaditya in the next 15-20 years.

The Navy has already seen what happens when you don't plan well in advance for this, when we had a two-carrier capability from 1987 till 1995 or so (or even 1997, depending on whether one counts the in-reserve Vikrant to be an active ship), and then again left with a single carrier from 1995/97 till 2013. Similarly, we again had two carriers till 2017, and were then down to a single carrier till 2022.

We should avoid something like this happening again and have a sustained three-carrier Navy. At the same time, other projects such as TEDBF, DBMRH, S5, P-75A, P-75I, P-76, MCMVs, P-17B, P-15C/P-18, MRSV, NGC, NGFAC, etc. have to be taken forward too. Massive list there, but a necessary one for sure.

 

[Ranjeet Singh]

IAC-II must be a 65000 ton AC capable to operate E-2 Sea AWACs planes and F-35Bs and two 80000+ Nuclear powered ACs for South China Sea and Mediterranean sea !

 

[nair_pv68]

The talk about the 3rd carrier will go on for another 3 - 5 years. everyone take a chill pill. we don't have that much money.

 

[Anant]

The talk about the 3rd carrier will go on for another 3 - 5 years. everyone take a chill pill. we don't have that much money.

On the contrary, we have the necessary funds for a second Vikrant-class carrier. We don't have the funding needed for a supercarrier, which is why that is on the back-burner.

 

[Anant]

IAC-II must be a 65000 ton AC capable to operate E-2 Sea AWACs planes and F-35Bs and two 80000+ Nuclear powered ACs for South China Sea and Mediterranean sea !

Firstly, no one has offered the F-35 to India, so please stop repeating that nonsense. Secondly, why on Earth would we want a carrier, and a nuclear-powered one at that, in the Mediterranean? That is even if we look past the unfeasibility of us having nuclear carriers for now.

 

[Rajesh]

Instead of a similar configuration for the 2nd carrier hope they keep the specifications similar but develop it into a flat top catobar configuration a stepping stone to 3rd carrier reducing the time between 1st and 3rd carrier.

 

[sunilanalysis]

out of six aircraft carriers planned, 3-4 will be idle, burning fuel or hatching eggs 🙂

 

[Anant]

out of six aircraft carriers planned, 3-4 will be idle, burning fuel or hatching eggs 🙂

You do realise that the six carrier goal is something to achieve over the next 50 years or so, right? The present goal is 3, with 5-6 carriers to be achieved in the 2060s or 2070s.

 

[Sandeep]

The quickest option is to build another Vikrant carrier but with a higher indigenous content and technology. While they construct that it gives us enough time to design and develop a 80000T carrier as by the time they construct it the threat level from China would increase so we need bigger carriers who can defend and attack very well. We should scrap the 65000T carrier as it won't be ideal to have at all.

 

[WarTech]

How long will it take to miniaturise nuclear reactors? Conventional carriers are not that great when compared to nuclear ones, even if it is costlier. The excess energy obtained can be used for many things to run in an AC. Also nuke powered subs are the way. We need both for our navy.