Indian Navy to Replace Aging Aircraft Carrier Vikramaditya with Upcoming 66k-tonne IAC-2, Opting Out of Three-Carrier Fleet Expansion

In a strategic shift, the Indian Navy has decided to replace its aging aircraft carrier, INS Vikramaditya, with the upcoming Indigenous Aircraft Carrier (IAC-2), rather than expanding to a three-carrier fleet as previously planned. This decision marks a significant change in the Navy's force structure and has ignited debate regarding India's naval capabilities and strategic priorities.

The Indian government has overruled the Navy's long-held desire for a three-carrier fleet, which was considered essential for maintaining a continuous carrier presence in both the Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal, even during maintenance periods. This shift in policy prioritizes the development of the IAC-2 as a direct replacement for INS Vikramaditya, which is expected to reach the end of its operational life by 2038.

INS Vikramaditya, acquired from Russia in 2013, has served as a crucial component of India's naval power projection. However, with its service life drawing to a close, the Navy has decided to focus on the indigenous development of the IAC-2. This new carrier, currently in the planning phase, will ensure the Navy maintains its current strength of two operational aircraft carriers.

While initially considering a repeat order of the INS Vikrant design for the IAC-2, the Navy may now revisit its original vision for a larger, more advanced carrier. This 65,000-tonne vessel could feature cutting-edge technologies like the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) and Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG), significantly enhancing its capabilities.

This decision to forego a third carrier raises questions about India's ability to project power and maintain a consistent presence in multiple maritime theaters, particularly in scenarios involving prolonged engagements or multiple fronts. However, it also underscores the commitment to developing indigenous warship-building capabilities and potentially fielding a more advanced and capable carrier in the future.

The construction of the IAC-2 will further solidify India's position as one of the few nations with the capacity to design and build aircraft carriers, a capability currently held by only the US, the UK, Russia, France, and China The first indigenous carrier, INS Vikrant, was built at Cochin Shipyard at a cost of ₹20,000 crore and commissioned in September 2022.

The IAC-2 is expected to leverage the expertise and infrastructure developed during the construction of INS Vikrant, bolstering India's domestic shipbuilding industry.

 

[DS]

Organic AirPower at sea in Indian Ocean is a sine qua non for Indian Navy. Hence a three aircraft carrier Navy is required and projected in our Perspective Plans.

Do we need to retire Vikramaditya aircraft carrier ?

India can upgrade it to a gas turbine powered warship in 2035 as we have full know how now after building VIKRANT ( fitted with LM2500 gas turbines ) at home in CSL.

Once refitted VIKRAMADITYA will be excellent for HOME FLEET duties in Arabian Sea / Bay of Bengal / Island territories of India.

 

[Pankaj Bawankule]

I think MOD & Indian Navy should consider INS Vikramaditya’s standby active service from any Suitable location in the Centre of Bay of Bengal and The Arabian Sea and utilise it’s weapons and aircraft’s until it’s superannuation.

 

[lalkrishna]

In my opinion, Indian Navy should prioritise in acquiring and operating more number of state of the art fighter aircrafts, over a 3rd Aircraft carrier.
It is known for a fact that, Andaman and Lakshadweep islands already acts as floating air bases in the sea, with the commissioning INS Jatayu just kilometers away from Maldives.

Indian Navy must operate a formidable airforce, so that IAF can relocate some of the aircraft from the southern air command and relocate to northern air command.

TEDBF and even Hornets can be operated from these forward airbases, thus providing valuable support to the Rafale M and maintaining air superiority in the region.

Even if IAC-2 is commissioned 2038, vikramaditya can be overhauled and refitted, be in ready for temporary deployment mode, help maintaining 3 aircraft carries, effectively.

 

[Ashram]

I think they require a multiple small type carrier which can carry swarm drones than an aircraft carrier.The future all looks like kamikaze drones or bombers .Small sized carriers will definitely be cost effective and useful to defend our coasts .

 

[M S Chatterji]

Then make 18 SSNs of different size and capabilities!

 

[Apocalypse gupta]

I agree with this. Navy does not have enough fighters for 3 carriers. Better to focus on other warships and submarines. 2 carriers enough for now

 

[Anant]

Considering that the idea here is to go for more submarines, it is possible the Navy might go for a modified Vikrant.

This does mean, however, that IAC-III can now be scaled up to 75,000-80,000 tons, have CATOBAR and either IEP or nuclear propulsion. That way, start work on the carrier in the early 2040s, and have the ship in service by the mid-2050s, getting a three carrier Navy. A second ship of this class can then arguably replace Vikrant in the 2060s.

Regardless, while this is not a decision I am personally too enthused with, it is good that this debate has been settled for now. We must make do with what we have and what we can manage. Hopefully, with this thing settled, we should see a ramp up in submarine plans.

 

[Phantom]

All we need is 4 LHD carriers that L&T is currently building, we will have 4+3=7 carriers theoretically, Vikrant, Vikramaditya and IAC-2 plus 4 Amphibious Assault carrier's, we can deploy helicopters and STOVL jets like F35B in them, one more 45ton carrier is a joke, we need 80-90t carrier with Catapult launcher preferably Electro Magnetic one that is light weight.

 

[beencensured]

I agree with this. Navy does not have enough fighters for 3 carriers. Better to focus on other warships and submarines. 2 carriers enough for now

India is not a small country, maybe you are thinking about Pakistan.

 

[abhinav srivastava]

Important is not to loose the tech competence and the learnings we had while constructing previous AC.

 

[navigate]

The two wars at Ukrain and middle east have shown very lucidity that the dynamics of war are changing or may have already changed.

From traditional ways to modern ways which include and are not limited to drone war fare, swarm drone war fare, loyal wingman with 6th generation aircraft, satellite war fare with capability to launch attacks, both kinetic and or electromagnetic from satellites in near earth space orbits, or from high flying loitering munitions and drones capable of electronic war fare.

Now capability to hack the enemies electronics, computers, drone handling equipments, drones as an active form of Defence beg to built upon.

This apart from solid deterent capability in conventional warfare is needed.

 

[Crusader 2024]

In my opinion, Indian Navy should prioritise in acquiring and operating more number of state of the art fighter aircrafts, over a 3rd Aircraft carrier.
It is known for a fact that, Andaman and Lakshadweep islands already acts as floating air bases in the sea, with the commissioning INS Jatayu just kilometers away from Maldives.

Indian Navy must operate a formidable airforce, so that IAF can relocate some of the aircraft from the southern air command and relocate to northern air command.

TEDBF and even Hornets can be operated from these forward airbases, thus providing valuable support to the Rafale M and maintaining air superiority in the region.

Even if IAC-2 is commissioned 2038, vikramaditya can be overhauled and refitted, be in ready for temporary deployment mode, help maintaining 3 aircraft carries, effectively.

A formidable air force doesn't include buying more 4/4.5 Generation Fighters. That is a complete waste of resources. In addition, India could have afforded three Vikrants from the start. Instead, she acquires the ex-Russian Vikramaditya, IAC-I Vikrant, and now a third IAC-II Vishal. This has to stop....India needs to consolidate the number of types and sources. This is very expensive and inefficient.

 

[Neal.B]

Having 2 carrier navy means only 1 operational 24×7. And if something happens to that one we are no more a AC operating country. Can we afford that? Absolutely no. Another historical blunder but some fools will tell you it's for good

 

[The_rED_dEVIL]

Having 2 carrier navy means only 1 operational 24×7. And if something happens to that one we are no more a AC operating country. Can we afford that? Absolutely no. Another historical blunder but some fools will tell you it's for good

It is not good for a country like India with such vast coastline to operate only two 45,000 tonne class carriers. Even the Royal Navy with minimum manpower operates two supercarriers.

We need two Vikrant class (45k tonnes) and two Vishal (70k tonnes) class carriers with one each of those in Eastern and Western Fleets accompanied by full Rafale and TEDBF Carrier Air Groups by 2040. Vishal class should be upgradable with nuclear propulsion from IEP later. Vishal carriers would be escorted by P18 destroyers and P17B frigates while the Vikrant class would be escorted by P15A/B destroyers and upgraded P17/A frigates. Also we need to plan a force of total 8 P77-class SSNs by 2045 following the first 2 by 2038 as cleared. (Still its too late)

We are also decommissioning amphibious warfare ships without replacement. No one thinks of that. We need two 20k tonne class LHDs and 4 10-15k tonne class LPDs with their own set of destroyers, frigates and subs.

 

[swatkats_razor]

Considering that the idea here is to go for more submarines, it is possible the Navy might go for a modified Vikrant.

This does mean, however, that IAC-III can now be scaled up to 75,000-80,000 tons, have CATOBAR and either IEP or nuclear propulsion. That way, start work on the carrier in the early 2040s, and have the ship in service by the mid-2050s, getting a three carrier Navy. A second ship of this class can then arguably replace Vikrant in the 2060s.

Regardless, while this is not a decision I am personally too enthused with, it is good that this debate has been settled for now. We must make do with what we have and what we can manage. Hopefully, with this thing settled, we should see a ramp up in submarine plans.

I think, Navy's plans were mired due to lack of suitable aircrafts to arm larger Aircraft Carriers for now. Ted-BF exists only in the realms of fiction, right next to Jurassic park.
In that light, going for a follow-up AC set in the mould of Vikrant class AC would act as a stop-gap for the Navy while it gets a few more things sorted vis-a-vis propulsion and the catapult technology to employ for the next phase of expansion which might see larger Aircraft Carriers getting acquired.

 

[Gururag Kalanidhi]

Sea Denial, with Diesel Electric, Nuclear Attack, and ANPP submarines would offer greater strategic depth compared to Power Projection platforms such as LHDs and ACs. Ideally, the Indian Navy should invest further into Long Range Drones for bay and IOC patrols. 2 carriers with carrier-based drones would offer IN all the depth it needs.

 

[Baiju Bhaskaran]

One of the best decisions. We must concentrate on having more Submarines. We should have more than fifteen nuclear and more than thirty conventional submarines.

 

[Scooter2000]

Honestly, a better plan is to have three identical IAC-1 Class Carriers. I would build two more but with Catapults (EMALS) and Arresting Gear. Then during Vikrant's mid-life refit. I would have her ski jump removed and replaced with the aforementioned catapults. When this has been completed you could retire the Vikramaditya. Honestly, one of the biggest problems with the Indian Military is they operate such a mixed force of different types. That is very costly and makes it near impossible to support them in an all-out conflict. India needs to consolidate the number of types she operates. Be those ships, planes, tanks, or whatever!

 

[Shanker]

I don't think that IAC-3 has been overruled. I believe the 'NO' now means, it's put on hold. Who knows, the third indigenous carrier might again be considered after a decade!🙂.

 

[Dredd]

Important is not to loose the tech competence and the learnings we had while constructing previous AC.

Govt will never learn and Bureaucrats will ensure that minds who worked on IAC 1 retire before we decide on IAC 2. If it was chine in place of india they would have already placed 2-3 more follow on orders,

 

[Biju UK]

There should be three carriers at the very minimum so that two can always be at sea. We are trying to avoid the incremental costs associated with carrier groups. This could and for all likelihood impact the maritime security of our nation , however some of the setbacks might be mitigated if our submarine force increases as per the projected numbers - 6 AIP's with 2 nukes. This plan is also in a state of limbo with the latest being that T&K has bagged the order.

 

[Anant]

It is not good for a country like India with such vast coastline to operate only two 45,000 tonne class carriers. Even the Royal Navy with minimum manpower operates two supercarriers.

We need two Vikrant class (45k tonnes) and two Vishal (70k tonnes) class carriers with one each of those in Eastern and Western Fleets accompanied by full Rafale and TEDBF Carrier Air Groups by 2040. Vishal class should be upgradable with nuclear propulsion from IEP later. Vishal carriers would be escorted by P18 destroyers and P17B frigates while the Vikrant class would be escorted by P15A/B destroyers and upgraded P17/A frigates. Also we need to plan a force of total 8 P77-class SSNs by 2045 following the first 2 by 2038 as cleared. (Still its too late)

We are also decommissioning amphibious warfare ships without replacement. No one thinks of that. We need two 20k tonne class LHDs and 4 10-15k tonne class LPDs with their own set of destroyers, frigates and subs.

1. We cannot afford four carriers at this point of time. Not by a country mile. Even three would have been tight.

2. The RN operates two supercarriers, sure. That has also left them with the kind of staffing issues where frigates are being decommissioned because of a lack of crews, and replenishment oilers are tied up at port awaiting refits because there are no crews to sail and maintain them during refits.

3. Regarding your point about 'upgrading' the carrier from IEP to nuclear propulsion: You do realise how monumental expensive, tedious, and stupid that is, right? Engines are not like a simple deck gun that you can pull out and replace. Replacing the propulsion system like-for-like involves essentially tearing out the entire deck and everything below it to just above the keel, replacing the system, and then building everything back up. Replacing one kind of propulsion system with another will essentially entail rebuilding the whole ship because you'll have to either redesign the interior around the new system, or go for a lot of empty or unutilised space or the like. You'd be better off building a new ship at that point. Let's not emulate the Russians and take a quarter century to refit a large ship, eh?

4. As for amphibious forces, well, I agree with you to an extent. However, what we need here is 2 LHDs, 3 LPDs, and maybe 5 or so LSTs. LSTs still have their benefits over LPDs.

 

[GMR]

The 3rd AC is not "No" per se, I think it's on hold for future.. with current budget, we can't afford a 3rd AC with its own battle grp and aircrafts simultaniously along with renewed focus on submarines.. Very practical decssion by MOD, along with Finance.
Now focus on SSN, SSBN & Conventional subs, where we have a huge capability gap and procure 3rd AC when we can economically afford it..

 

[Anant]

Honestly, a better plan is to have three identical IAC-1 Class Carriers. I would build two more but with Catapults (EMALS) and Arresting Gear. Then during Vikrant's mid-life refit. I would have her ski jump removed and replaced with the aforementioned catapults. When this has been completed you could retire the Vikramaditya. Honestly, one of the biggest problems with the Indian Military is they operate such a mixed force of different types. That is very costly and makes it near impossible to support them in an all-out conflict. India needs to consolidate the number of types she operates. Be those ships, planes, tanks, or whatever!

Boss, while I would also love it for the Navy to have three carriers, if it comes to between a third carrier and, say, a pair or trio of SSNs, I'll take the latter.

Now, regarding EMALS, our indigenous EMALS system is still years away from being operationalised at a scale where you can use it on a carrier. We only have a small working model as of now. Therefore, if you wait for such a system for IAC-II, then Vikramaditya will be gone before its replacement comes online.

Next, your point about refitting Vikrant with a catapult system in the future: See, in theory, it is doable. You'd have to rebuild the entire bow. However, the challenge with that is that you'll lose the internal space within the bow, so you'd have to re-arrange the ship's interiors to an extent. It is doable, sure, but it is a complex endeavour. However, the lack of an EMALS system makes this a non-starter for now at least.

The entire rationalisation of equipment is why I am in favour of the Navy going for a modified Vikrant-class ship as IAC-II, and then redesigning IAC-III into a proper large CATOBAR carrier.

If really needed, you could fit an EMALS set along the angled deck at a later point of time. That would allow for it to be used to launch drones (lighter than fighters, so it helps), and would give useful operational and maintenance experience.