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.

 

[Mithu Roy]

India should collaborate with France for 65 tons carrier.This will lower cost of development and manufacturing drastically.
India will gain immensely on E mal as well as nuclear propulsion.

 

[JP Singh]

The Indian peninsula is the biggest and undestructable aircraft carrier. What we need is aircraft with long range capable of flying deep over the Indian Ocean. Acquiring long range bombers like the TU 160 will greatly boost our power over the Indian Ocean till the Antartic Circle. Its a wonder why our country hasnt invested in long range bombers.

 

[Ranjeet Singh]

Directorate of Naval design must go for a 65000 ton electric powered AC and then hone the skills on another 65000 ton AC we don't settle for smaller ACs ! At same time seek tech to make Kazan and Sufften class SSNs to form CBGs !

 

[NSR]

India must order only an improved version of IAC-1 with big elevators and some improved spacing down.
It will give a fillip to Indian economy.

Two carriers can be deployed at a time in two sides of seas with third one going into Dry dock for repairs, refurbishments and refits, etc

Make do with Mig-29Ks and pour all money into TEDBF development, and manufacture of some Naval Tejas to field on the present carriers.
I am confident that India can realize TEDBF sooner as it gained full lifecycle in design and development.

Pray and hope for that.

 

[Anant]

India should collaborate with France for 65 tons carrier.This will lower cost of development and manufacturing drastically.
India will gain immensely on E mal as well as nuclear propulsion.

Firstly, France, or any other nation for that matter, isn't going to share the technology of military naval nuclear propulsion. That is a big no-no, especially for France.

Secondly, they aren't developing catapults of their own. They are simply buying an EMALS + AAG set from the Americans. The Americans offered the system to us a few years back too, but the 1 billion USD price tag meant we turned down the offer.

Finally, France is partly through the design process already. We wouldn't be able to catch up to them now. What might happen is that we could get the basic design documents, work our way from there, and eventually build our carrier.

 

[Anant]

Directorate of Naval design must go for a 65000 ton electric powered AC and then hone the skills on another 65000 ton AC we don't settle for smaller ACs ! At same time seek tech to make Kazan and Sufften class SSNs to form CBGs !

Military nuclear technology is a big no-no when it comes to ToT. They can assist us, but nothing beyond that. Hence, any suggestions of license-building or technology seeking for SSNs is a non-starter, unless you know something the rest of us don't.

 

[Anant]

Excellent news.

However, just to act as devil's advocate for a moment: There is a possibility that the five to six carriers alluded to by the Defence Minister here could include the four LHDs planned under the MRSV project. After all, LHDs also look similar to carriers, and media and officials often mix them up. If this is indeed the case, then it is very possible we may see some movement on the MRSV tender as well soon.

If not, well, 6 carriers is a 50 year project. What might happen is that we might get IAC-II in the 2030s, with a further two-ship class of IAC-III and IAC-IV entering service in the early 2040s (to replace Vikramaditya) and late 2040s. That might be followed by a two-ship class, of which one would replace Vikrant in the late 2060s. There could be a further class of two, or the preceding class could be of four ships, and would replace IAC-II as well. That would give six carriers by the mid-2070s or so.

 

[Ningphungthem]

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

 

[Anant]

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

Say what now? What sort of utter nonsense are you speaking? Why on Earth should we buy retired American warships unless we need to? Do you think the Indian Navy is some form of dumping ground where you can come and just dump old warships and call it a day?

 

[Rational Guy]

Focus should be on SSN SSKs as well.

 

[Akshat]

The Indian peninsula is the biggest and undestructable aircraft carrier. What we need is aircraft with long range capable of flying deep over the Indian Ocean. Acquiring long range bombers like the TU 160 will greatly boost our power over the Indian Ocean till the Antartic Circle. Its a wonder why our country hasnt invested in long range bombers.

It’s no wonder at all. There are 3 possible scenarios here.

1. We use the bombers to bomb land targets. That’s is pointless as China is very well armed with SAMs, and we don’t need bombers to bomb Pak coast. Our ships and planes are already more than capable.

2. We use bombers to bomb ships, but no enemy AC is present in such a flotilla. A bomber will not be practical here. Pakistani ships don’t venture out too far, and can be taken care of by our planes. Chinese ships will only enter via Malacca or nearby straits, where planes positioned on A&N are far more reliable.

3. Our bombers try to take on an AC. This is never gonna happen. Any enemy AC will destroy our bombers well in advance.

So a bomber in our case presents no advantage whatsoever. Now, if we had stealth bombers, there might have been some scenarios where we could have still used them. But till now, at best our options were limited to Russian bombers. That is the case even now. And let’s not talk about indigenous development at all. So a bomber is only a liability for us with no advantages at all.

 

[Sandeep]

The quick and easiest solution is to build another Vikrant carrier which will take about 5-6 years to build but increase the indigenous technology and content along with making its combat capabilities more lethal. During that time we should design a 80000t carrier which will take at least 8-10 years to build unless we modernise and use the block chain construction method which would make it much quicker and easier to assemble in a shipyard.

We need a 80000t carrier because the threat from China is only going to increase and we will need larger carriers which can hold more jets so that we can defend the Indian Ocean as China will increase the number of carrier battle groups it will build and they will move the focus away from the South China Sea towards Asia and the Pacific. We need to build at least 4-6 80000t carrier groups to ensure we maintain dominance in the Indian Ocean.

 

[Frank]

We need more

SSK(VLS)
SSN
SSBN..

NOT AC WHICH ARE LIABILITY

 

[Frank]

Is he for real?? I can't believe it... How is this possible...

I hope it's usual Rajnath blabbering and he is not serious. It's absurd..

We don't Need more AC white elephants...

Have we learnt nothing from Russia Ukraine war??

How unkraine sunk moskva the pride of Russia???

2 AC is enough.. At max 3

 

[Pramkumar]

Must go for the CBG of 12. 4 for Indian waters, 3 or IOR, 2 for Pacific region, 3 for Atlantic Ocean to protect the shipping lines and friendly countries.

 

[Anant]

The quick and easiest solution is to build another Vikrant carrier which will take about 5-6 years to build but increase the indigenous technology and content along with making its combat capabilities more lethal. During that time we should design a 80000t carrier which will take at least 8-10 years to build unless we modernise and use the block chain construction method which would make it much quicker and easier to assemble in a shipyard.

We need a 80000t carrier because the threat from China is only going to increase and we will need larger carriers which can hold more jets so that we can defend the Indian Ocean as China will increase the number of carrier battle groups it will build and they will move the focus away from the South China Sea towards Asia and the Pacific. We need to build at least 4-6 80000t carrier groups to ensure we maintain dominance in the Indian Ocean.

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.

 

[Anant]

Is he for real?? I can't believe it... How is this possible...

I hope it's usual Rajnath blabbering and he is not serious. It's absurd..

We don't Need more AC white elephants...

Have we learnt nothing from Russia Ukraine war??

How unkraine sunk moskva the pride of Russia???

2 AC is enough.. At max 3

This is not a short-term goal. A 5 carrier or 6 carrier Navy is a 50-year goal. Even in the best case scenario, India would reach sustained 3 carrier capability in 2033-35, a sustained 4 carrier capability in the late 2040s, a sustained 5 carrier capability in the late 2050s or early 2060s, and a sustained 6 carrier capability by the mid-2070s. That is, mind you, the best case scenario for this.

So, please calm down. There are lessons to be learnt from Russia's invasion, but a non-need for carriers isn't one of them. We are developing UUVs and USVs as well.

 

[Anant]

Must go for the CBG of 12. 4 for Indian waters, 3 or IOR, 2 for Pacific region, 3 for Atlantic Ocean to protect the shipping lines and friendly countries.

Keeping aside the absurdity of 12 CBGs, are you saying you want 7 CBGs in the IOR? Seriously? What sort of naval threat do you perceive here, exactly, that would necessitate 7 CBGs, and not, say, 3 or 4?

 

[Bhishma]

Looks like China's PR has backfired. It will be 6-7 years before they can bring Fujian operational. That media circus has goaded us into action. Good job China.

 

[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.