India Sets Sights on 5-6 More Aircraft Carriers to Challenge China's Naval Hegemony

In a significant development, India's naval aspirations appear to be expanding beyond the initially planned three-carrier fleet. Defence Minister Rajnath Singh's recent declaration, "We will not stop at that (three carriers). We will make five, six more," has ignited speculation about a much larger and more ambitious carrier program.

The Indian Navy is currently awaiting Project sanction for the development of its third aircraft carrier. This carrier, modeled after the indigenously built INS Vikrant, is expected to incorporate technological advancements, strengthening India's maritime capabilities.

However, the Navy's ambitions extend further. A larger carrier, potentially displacing 65,000 tons, is being envisioned. This larger platform could accommodate cutting-edge technologies like Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch Systems (EMALS) and carry a more substantial complement of fighter jets, significantly enhancing its combat potential.

The driving force behind India's expanding carrier ambitions seems to be China's rapid naval expansion. China's plans to operate a fleet of 5-6 aircraft carriers, with the possibility of one battle group deployed in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR), have prompted India to reassess its strategic needs.

China's recent launch of the Fujian, an 80,000-ton aircraft carrier, and its plans for similar vessels have further fueled India's determination to bolster its naval capabilities.

India now faces a crucial strategic choice: whether to prioritize a larger carrier force with fewer but more capable vessels, or a larger number of smaller carriers. This decision will hinge on careful consideration of various factors, including strategic needs, technological advancements, and budgetary constraints.

 

[Sandeep]

A second Vikrant-class carrier will take 10 years from the time construction starts to the time the ship is commissioned, not 5-6 years. As of today, if we assume IAC-II gets cleared when the DAC meets in June after the elections, we can have the ship in service by 2034-35 at the earliest.

We should, at the same time, be working on the 75,000-80,000 ton nuclear-powered CATOBAR carrier, as you said. This ship, IAC-III, would have to start construction around 2030-31 (when IAC-II completes her fitting out), and would enter service in 2043-44, right in time to relieve the venerable Vikramaditya, which has an OSD of 2043-45. If absolutely necessary, we could build a second ship of this class to enter service in the late 2040s to reach a four-carrier Navy, with a follow-on class of supercarriers increasing numbers yet again and replacing Vikrant around 2065.

No the shipyard and the navy said that it will take about 5-6 years as they know what to do and how to construct a second sister ship and the necessary infrastructure is available. Also elections are finished soon and the DAC meet regularly but as this will be an expensive project then it will need to be authorised by the CCS which meet monthly or more based on the need.

Developing a 80000t carrier will be complex but we need to build it sooner or later anyway. If we use nuclear power then it’s quite expensive to develop, fuel and maintain and we might not be able to develop it as quickly as possible. The other alternative is to have a diesel run engine and use normal fuel. Our carriers will mostly stay in the Indian Ocean so it won’t have to go far and we could always refuel at friendly countries if we need to deploy outside the ocean.

 

[Boomeranger]

We need more

SSK(VLS)
SSN
SSBN..

NOT AC WHICH ARE LIABILITY

Yaaaas... AND also, Minus 5th gen. and 5th gen. super expensive imported fighter jets at least 400 nos. would be required for AF & IN. Each AC will require at least 30 escort ships- some carrying just perishable food items and fuel, others as Air defense and underseas defense ships & missile ships with fast boats! ALSO, medical aid ships etc. Also, at least 3 to 7 subs must be continuously patrolling around and under each AC to detect underwater torpedoes or drones or saboteur commandos...

 

[Anant]

No the shipyard and the navy said that it will take about 5-6 years as they know what to do and how to construct a second sister ship and the necessary infrastructure is available. Also elections are finished soon and the DAC meet regularly but as this will be an expensive project then it will need to be authorised by the CCS which meet monthly or more based on the need.

Developing a 80000t carrier will be complex but we need to build it sooner or later anyway. If we use nuclear power then it’s quite expensive to develop, fuel and maintain and we might not be able to develop it as quickly as possible. The other alternative is to have a diesel run engine and use normal fuel. Our carriers will mostly stay in the Indian Ocean so it won’t have to go far and we could always refuel at friendly countries if we need to deploy outside the ocean.

I am not saying you are wrong. However, let me put the timelines this way:
1. Contract negotiations after the carrier is cleared by DAC: 9-15 months.
2. CCS approval after contract negotiations are concluded: 3-6 months.
3. Contract signing after CCS approval: 3 months.
4. Start of construction after contract signing: 6-12 months.
5. Keel laying after start of construction: 6-12 months.
6. Launch of ship after keel laying: 30-42 months.
7. Fitting out after launch of ship: 24-30 months.
8. Sea trials and post-trial refit: 18-30 months.
9. Delivery and commissioning after all that is done: 6 months.

Even if you take the mean number for all that, and assume DAC clearance comes in June 2024, the carrier would be commissioned in 2035. The 5-6 year figure given by CSL corresponds to the period between keel laying and start of trials. When you add everything else that comes along with this, the timelines stretch out to over 10 years.

Similarly, if we can start on a larger carrier, in, say 2030-31, the above process with relevant timelines would stretch out to atleast 13-14 years. That said, while nuclear propulsion would help, especially with things such as electromagnetic catapults, the propulsion system should not come at the cost of delaying IAC-III to a point where we are down to two carriers again once Vikramaditya bows out. We could always go for nuclear power on IAC-IV (either a replacement for Vikrant or a sustained fourth carrier, as circumstances demand). All I am saying is that nuclear propulsion would be better to have, but that is secondary. After all, a nuclear carrier may be better than a conventional carrier, but a conventional carrier is still infinitely better than no carrier.

 

[beencensured]

India should buy all the retired warships of the US Navy as it has become useless to US and use those Ships to patrol and defend our own Seas and Territories and not do power show to the World

India got burnt with that idea with INS Jalashwa disaster where several members of crew died. Old has risks.

 

[Sandeep]

I am not saying you are wrong. However, let me put the timelines this way:
1. Contract negotiations after the carrier is cleared by DAC: 9-15 months.
2. CCS approval after contract negotiations are concluded: 3-6 months.
3. Contract signing after CCS approval: 3 months.
4. Start of construction after contract signing: 6-12 months.
5. Keel laying after start of construction: 6-12 months.
6. Launch of ship after keel laying: 30-42 months.
7. Fitting out after launch of ship: 24-30 months.
8. Sea trials and post-trial refit: 18-30 months.
9. Delivery and commissioning after all that is done: 6 months.

Even if you take the mean number for all that, and assume DAC clearance comes in June 2024, the carrier would be commissioned in 2035. The 5-6 year figure given by CSL corresponds to the period between keel laying and start of trials. When you add everything else that comes along with this, the timelines stretch out to over 10 years.

Similarly, if we can start on a larger carrier, in, say 2030-31, the above process with relevant timelines would stretch out to atleast 13-14 years. That said, while nuclear propulsion would help, especially with things such as electromagnetic catapults, the propulsion system should not come at the cost of delaying IAC-III to a point where we are down to two carriers again once Vikramaditya bows out. We could always go for nuclear power on IAC-IV (either a replacement for Vikrant or a sustained fourth carrier, as circumstances demand). All I am saying is that nuclear propulsion would be better to have, but that is secondary. After all, a nuclear carrier may be better than a conventional carrier, but a conventional carrier is still infinitely better than no carrier.

No it wouldn’t take that long just in dealing with the contracts and tendering and also Cochin shipyard is the only one which is large enough to build carriers of that size I think. At most the price and technology negotiations would take a year because they are basically putting in a repeat order to most of the equipment and technology so other than making minor modifications or upgrades most of the structure would be the same. As for the timeline to make it I don’t think it will take that long or run on the timeline you quoted.

If we are able to design and develop a nuclear reactor and propulsion while we build another vikrant carrier then it’s good as we will have to develop it eventually. The only issue after is if we can afford to build it, how long it will take along with the amount of nuclear fuel required and how long it lasts before needing to be refuelled.

 

[Crusader 2024]

Best solution I think for the Indian Navy. Is to just build two more Vikrant Class Carriers but with Catapults. (EMALS?) Then when the first of the class comes in for her mid-life refit. Just replace the ski-jump with a catapult too! This would give India three identical carriers. She could add one or two more if needed...The Vikrant is a good carrier and about the size of the French Charles de Gaulle. Honestly, size isn't everything....of course she needs a good Air Wing. Something better than what the Chinese have...(J-15 & J-35)