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.

 

[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.

 

[Sandeep]

It’s better to place another repeat order of the Vikrant carrier but increase the amount of indigenous technology rate that we use. We should also upgrade the technology and improve its capabilities a lot more than what we currently have.

While constructing that repeat order we should start designing an even bigger carrier at 80000t. This is because the threat from China will continue to increase and so will their carrier size and numbers.

 

[The_rED_dEVIL]

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.

1. No one is asking to place immediate orders for three aircraft carriers in FY2025-26 at once. Well you may push back the time to 2045 from the 2040 I said. But we need them. Repeat orders are always relatively cheaper you know that.

2. You won't want to compare the population of UK and India. IN can easily increase recruits, over the next 10-15 years there won't be any shortages, there are no lack of defence aspirants (officers as well as sailors). This problem is with UK, US and European countries... not India.

3. Well, you may rule out the nuclear reactor, worldwide mission deployments like those done by the US and France and planned by China may not be an immediate need for India. But definitely R&D could solve the problem if it is needed. Some weapons systems have been established which never had been thought of earlier.

4. For amphibious warfare ships, any addition of larger ships will be good,

 

[kumar]

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..

Precisely. ACs need thier own battle group in addition to thier aviation wing. 3rd AC may be in future.

 

[Prince singh Rawat]

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

It's not about being small but about our needs which can be fulfilled by 2 carriers.

 

[Sridhar]

Wise decision. AC doesn't come cheap. They need Destroyers, Frigates, and Submarines as escorts. This excludes the fighter jets and helicopters it needs to carry. Each AC comes with a high operational cost. To manage 7k plus KM of coastline, warships, inshore offshore patrol can do the job. Shallow watercraft can patrol areas like Rann of Kutch.

The Indian Navy needs to look at increasing its underwater platform (both conventional and Nuclear), increase the drone fleet. Induct warships with more powerful LR AShM, Anti-Ship missiles. IN needs to play to its strength and shouldn't plan to match ship to ship with PLAAN.

 

[sunilanalysis]

Good decision...
Third AC would have done nothing than help some chickens hatching eggs...
Invest that money in more modern weapons...

 

[Sridhar]

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.

Where is the money ? Where are the jets to Operate from the deck ? Where are the ships which is going to be part of the carrier group? Why should IN go for 80 to 90 T carrier when it's primary agenda is to ensure India's EEZ security?

 

[beencensured]

It's not about being small but about our needs which can be fulfilled by 2 carriers.

Nope we cannot remain agrainan economy, otherwise more poverty. We need to continously build aircraft carriers or lose that technology.